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.
Post Reply
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

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

"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. Then:

"Early Christians like Paul don't refer to Gospel-like events when talking about Jesus, so the lack of Gospel-like details when talking about a Jesus (who was nothing like the figure in the Gospels in the first place) is evidence against that Jesus."

Both statements can't be true!

There's much more to mythicism than just that, of course. And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that a historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus, then it's fair enough to ask why Paul, say, doesn't mention Gospel-like details. But that isn't the only HJ in town.

What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past. If you believe that's not true -- that, say, Paul believed Jesus took on a body of flesh in other space and was crucified by demons -- then fair enough, we can agree to disagree and argue over the details separately.

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.

People had visions of the resurrected Jesus and for some reason thought he was the Christ, either before or after death. But if he was Christ (the argument goes), then he'd have to conform to Scriptures. We see this view quite clearly in Acts of the Apostles. And so stories about that Scriptures-conforming Christ figure started to appear. At some point, the author of gMark collects them, probably adds some more him/herself, and probably adds in stories about Paul and other apostles and makes them into stories and sayings about Jesus. Other writers started doing the same.

Meanwhile, the new god Jesus starts being used by people to do healings, exorcise demons, etc. We suddenly see magicians like Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides popping up around this time. Independent religious entrepreneurs like Paul and on all sides -- Jews and pagans -- start invoking the heavenly powers of Jesus, leading to the growth and popularity of the movement. There was a riotous diversity at that time: mystery religions, gnostic, anything that could use this new heavenly power. Some tried to align within Judaism (Ebionites), some outside Judaism (Marcion), some in between.

Eventually one part of the movement, the proto-orthodox, gained enough power to enforce orthodoxy. It tried to become respectable by showing how much Christianity aligned with Greek philosophers and so Christianity was retro-fitted. Part of that was using the Gospels to portray Jesus as more like a Greek philosopher. At that point, the Gospels started to become authoritative and the life of Jesus took on a significance that it didn't have until then. Previously it was his death and resurrection to heaven that was important, not his life.

So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature:

According to Justin Martyr, around 150CE:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

[Trypho] ... "say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ , and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ, [it is well]"

[Justin replies] But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

Also in Hebrews:

5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

Also in 1 Peter:

2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth...

In Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 7.22

The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary.

It doesn't tell us much about a historical Jesus, to the point he might as well not have existed. But so what? We have what we have. 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).

So, speculating: how did Jesus' obedience lead to death? Here I turn to the Gospels. Not because I regard their content as true, obviously, but because they are really all we have. 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. At a time when Cancel Culture involved crucifixion, he was cancelled. It fits with the theme of obedience "unto death".

Epiphanius, writing in the Fourth Century CE, refers to heretics he calls "the Herodians". These were people who believed that the dual role of King and High Priest ended with the death of Alexander Jannaeus around 70 BCE, and that ending conformed with the prophecy signifying the coming of the Christ. This pointed to King Herod the Great as being Christ.

I speculate that the ending of the dual role of King and High Priest started up groups like the Herodians that were expecting a Christ figure to come soon. These were the Churches in Christ and Churches of God that Paul was persecuting. Perhaps Jesus was part of one of those groups (I thank Earl Doherty for that idea, which comes out of his analysis of Q). For some reason Jesus was assigned the role of Christ, either before or after death, it's impossible to say.

Anyway, that last part aside: I think my theory is consistent with what we see in Paul and other early epistles. Early Christians were more interested in Jesus' death than in his life. The idea of a "newspaper reporter's Jesus" -- one where Jesus was such an important figure during life that he would have been noticed even if he wasn't thought to have been resurrected -- is a strawman. But lots of Christian scholars and some mythicists just can't let it go. Please stop using that strawman!
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm There is a cognitive dissonance in some mythicists that drives me crazy. I came across it often when debating Earl Doherty over the years. It went something like this:

"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. Then:

"Early Christians like Paul don't refer to Gospel-like events when talking about Jesus, so the lack of Gospel-like details when talking about a Jesus (who was nothing like the figure in the Gospels in the first place) is evidence against that Jesus."

There's much more to mythicism than just that, of course. And if you are arguing against someone who thinks that a historical Jesus was like the Gospel Jesus, then it's fair enough to ask why Paul, say, doesn't mention Gospel-like details. But that isn't the only HJ in town.

What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.

I'll start by saying that to me, Paul believed that Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in Paul's recent past. If you believe that's not true -- that, say, Paul believed Jesus took on a body of flesh in other space and was crucified by demons -- then fair enough, we can agree to disagree and argue over the details separately.

Who was that Jesus? Paul describes him as humble-minded, "obedient unto death" 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.

People had visions of the resurrected Jesus and for some reason thought he was the Christ, either before or after death. But if he was Christ (the argument goes), then he'd have to conform to Scriptures. We see this view quite clearly in Acts of the Apostles. And so stories about that Scriptures-conforming Christ figure started to appear. At some point, the author of gMark collects them, probably adds some more him/herself, and probably adds in stories about Paul and other apostles and makes them into stories and sayings about Jesus. Other writers started doing the same.

Meanwhile, the new god Jesus starts being used by people to do healings, exorcise demons, etc. We suddenly see magicians like Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides popping up around this time. Independent religious entrepreneurs like Paul and on all sides -- Jews and pagans -- start invoking the heavenly powers of Jesus, leading to the growth and popularity of the movement. There was a riotous diversity at that time: mystery religions, gnostic, anything that could use this new heavenly power. Some tried to align within Judaism (Ebionites), some outside Judaism (Marcion), some in between.

Eventually one part of the movement, the proto-orthodox, gained enough power to enforce orthodoxy. It tried to become respectable by showing how much Christianity aligned with Greek philosophers and so Christianity was retro-fitted. Part of that was using the Gospels to portray Jesus as more like a Greek philosopher. At that point, the Gospels started to become authoritative and the life of Jesus took on a significance that it didn't have until then. Previously it was his death and resurrection to heaven that was important, not his life.

So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature:

According to Justin Martyr, around 150CE:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html




All you have here is an interpretation of texts. No historical data upon which to anchor your speculative interpretation of gospel texts. That mythicists offer different interpretation of these texts simply keeps the speculation ball rolling.

Jesus from outer space verse a nobody Jesus. A Jesus of no identity verse an alien shape- shifter.

Speculation is futile without a hook to reality. Yes, wouldn't it be lovely if the gospel Jesus figure was based on a historical figure. But lovely is useless for philosophy......though theology might find some use for it.

Philosophy runs on ideas not feelings. A nobody Jesus, a Jesus who left it to others to speculate about his value to humanity is not worth the papyrus his story is written on.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:04 pmA nobody Jesus, a Jesus who left it to others to speculate about his value to humanity is not worth the papyrus his story is written on.
And so... ? That's something like the cognitive dissonance I'm pointing to at the start of my post. It sounds like the only historical Jesus worth arguing against is a mighty one. What does it matter if it was a nobody Jesus, whose value to humanity isn't worth the papyrus his story was written on?
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

I don’t think we are ignoring the possibility the Gospels record oral lore. We simply have no reason to believe it—and every reason to disbelieve it. We’ve moved on. Scholarship needs to join us. Because until they do, all they are doing is chasing a ghost of their own making.


--Carrier (31 July 2021). "The GCRR eConference on the Historical Jesus: A Retrospective". Richard Carrier Blogs.
It’s the growing consensus in Jesus studies now that the first Christians believed Jesus was the incarnation of a pre-existent celestial being.
[...]
This does provide a foundation for doubting the historicity of Jesus: if so much could be believed with total conviction of such a mythical person (the “Jesus” who predates and post-dates his Earthly life), then why would it take any more effort to believe it of a wholly mythical person?


--Carrier (22 January 2023). "Chrissy Hansen on the Pre-Existent Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.
We all agree the Christians originally believed Jesus was from outer space. So the only question is, in the original creed, how far did they think he actually descended from there to effect his cosmic sacrifice?

(p. 9)
--Carrier, Richard (2020). Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing (US&CA). ISBN 978-1-63431-208-0.
maryhelena wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:52 am Just because Paul can be interpreted to be referencing a heavenly, an 'outer space' crucifixion story, does not in any shape or form cancel out the Terra Firma crucifixion of the gospel story. There are two crucifixion stories in the NT. A heavenly 'crucifixion' relates to what we do when we want to get rid of any old idea - we crucify it - we kill it off. That is how our intellect works. That is the power and the value of intellectual evolution: life, death and rebirth of our intellectual capacity.

The gospel crucifixion story on terra firma - a human crucified has no salvation potential. It's just a sad reflection on how inhumane our species can fall. History has it's dark side as well as it's contribution to our existence. But we need to know where we have come from. The woke cancel agenda of some mythicsts leaves much to be desired.
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm "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. Then:

"Early Christians like Paul don't refer to Gospel-like events when talking about Jesus, so the lack of Gospel-like details when talking about a Jesus (who was nothing like the figure in the Gospels in the first place) is evidence against that Jesus."

Both statements can't be true!
[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary.

(pp. 14–15)
--Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.
Paul sincerely believed that the evidence (not restricted to the Wisdom literature) pointed to a historical Jesus who had lived well before his own day; and I leave open the question as to whether such a person had in fact existed and lived the obscure life that Paul supposed of him. (There is no means of deciding this issue.)

(p. 19)
--Wells, George (1996). The Jesus Legend. Open Court Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8126-9334-5
  • Why does Yesus have to be one single individual?
Occam's Razor supports the amalgamate Jesus of the gospels, NOT the Minimal Historicity of an individual Jesus!
Had there been no imaginary Jesus, there would have been no Christianity. Thus, the historicity hypothesis doesn’t really do all that much work to explain the origins of Christianity: we all agree it originated from the teachings of a non-existent Jesus, so why do we need to cling so desperately to a real Jesus, who didn’t even invent the religion?

--Carrier, Richard (2020). "Jesus from Outer Space?". The Bible and Interpretation.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

dbz wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 9:51 pmWhy does Yesus have to be one single individual?
Do you think Paul's Jesus was one single entity, or an amalgamation of entities? If the latter, what is the evidence for that?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm What I thought I'd do is explain why I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for what we see in the earliest layer of Christian texts (letters by Paul and gMark) and who that historical Jesus probably was.
I haven't read the whole post yet, but right away, if nothing else, I do appreciate the bold and direct approach!
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

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

Post by Sinouhe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 10:18 pm
So, who was that historical Jesus? Paul describes him as humble, coming as a servant, obedient unto death. We see this theme in other early literature
An allusion to the scriptures : Isaiah 53.

If an ancient author said that Inanna, was obedient unto death and we know that he had Isaiah 53 in mind because he thought that Inanna was the character described in this passage of Isaiah, would this be a proof that Inanna had existed ?

If other authors, decades or centuries later, had taken up the myth of Inanna by attributing to her the same courage and obedience unto death, because they had also believed that Inanna was the character described in Isaiah 53, would their testimonies be proof of the existence of Inanna?

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's Jesus is an amalgam of Isaiah's servant and Daniel's son of man. This amalgam was not new. It was a Jewish belief that can be found in the parables of Enoch and in IV Ezra which both mention fictitious Messianic characters.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:12 pm
maryhelena wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 4:04 pmA nobody Jesus, a Jesus who left it to others to speculate about his value to humanity is not worth the papyrus his story is written on.
And so... ? That's something like the cognitive dissonance I'm pointing to at the start of my post. It sounds like the only historical Jesus worth arguing against is a mighty one. What does it matter if it was a nobody Jesus, whose value to humanity isn't worth the papyrus his story was written on?
I find no value in such a useless notion. If others do - that's their choice. It matters nothing to me what people believe. My interest is a historical search for the roots of early christianity - I find no historical worth in a nobody Jesus.

It's not a choice between a nobody Jesus and a Jesus from outer space. It's not a choice between Jesus and Paul. It's not a choice between history and philosophy. History requires hard facts (as far as they can be established) Philosophy requires ideas - and often ideas about history. One can't short circuit this enquiry by denying history it's primary role. A nobody Jesus has no role in history. Presuming a nobody Jesus is just that - presumption.

A nobody Jesus ? How many of them would be walking the sands of Palestine ? Which one is 'the' one ? We have to get beyond the nobodies and get serious. That means a historical approach to the NT story.

Bottom line - a nobody Jesus is just a waste of time. Time better spent facing the hard cold fact that the gospel Jesus figure is a literary figure not a flesh and blood nobody figure, hence not a historical figure. That idea has sailed long ago - found to be of no value whatsoever. Faith perhaps softens the hard edges of living on terra-firma - but it does not provide the intellectual enlightenment needed to face the challenges life throws up.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm There is a cognitive dissonance in some mythicists that drives me crazy. I came across it often when debating Earl Doherty over the years. It went something like this:

"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. Then:

"Early Christians like Paul don't refer to Gospel-like events when talking about Jesus, so the lack of Gospel-like details when talking about a Jesus (who was nothing like the figure in the Gospels in the first place) is evidence against that Jesus."

Both statements can't be true!
They can. And there is no cognitive dissonance on Earl Doherty's part at all.

You go on to note that ED does not accept Paul's Jesus is an earthly figure, so ED is being entirely consistent.

If neither gospels nor Paul speak of a historical Jesus then there is no evidence from the time of the gospels and Paul for a historical Jesus.

If there is no evidence for a HJ, then that counts, quite reasonably many would say, as evidence against an HJ having existed.

By then elaborating what happened in generations after the time of the supposed HJ does not add anything to an argument for an HJ.
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:17 pm So, speculating: how did Jesus' obedience lead to death? Here I turn to the Gospels. Not because I regard their content as true, obviously, but because they are really all we have. 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. At a time when Cancel Culture involved crucifixion, he was cancelled. It fits with the theme of obedience "unto death".
You can get away with that sort of method among theologians but it will never pass among other historians. If "all we have" does not meet the requirements of evidence then we don't lower our standards and speculate probabilities, -- we say we don't have any evidence.

If we don't have any evidence for unicorns we cannot say whether they exist or not -- because, to complete the circle -- we have no evidence.
Post Reply