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

[Sinouhe]

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)

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.

Few examples :

1Q14, fragments 8-10, lines 3-11: 3

[.... «What are the high places of Judah? Is it not Je]rusa[lem? I will reduce Samaria] 4 [to a country ruin, to a plot of vines» (= Micah 1.5b-6a). ~] Its interpretation concerns the Spreader of the Lie 5 [who has misdirected the] simple. ~ «What are the high places of Judah? 6 [Is it not Jerusalem?» Its interpretation con]cerns the Teacher of Righteousness who 7 [teaches the law to] his [council] and to a[l]l those volunteering to join the chosen of 8 [God, observing the law] in the council of the Community, those who will be saved from the day of 9 [judgment ...] .... [....] 10 [.... «As for what he says, I will reduce Samaria to] a country ruin» (= Micah 1.6) 11 [....] .... [....]

1QpHab, columns 7-9, lines 17, 1-13, & 1-12a: 7.17

[.... «But the righteous man will live because of their loyalty to him» (= Habakkuk 2.4b).] 8.1 Its interpretation concerns all observing the Law in the House of Judah, whom 2 God will free from the house of judgment on account of their toil and of their loyalty 3 to the Teacher of Righteousness.
8 «For the human blood (spilt) and the violence (done) to the country, the city and all /who dwell/ in it» (= Habakkuk 2.8b). ~ 9 Its interpretation concerns the [Wi]cked Priest, whom, for the wickedness against the Teacher of 10 Righteousness and the members of his council, God delivered into the hands of his enemies to disgrace him 11 with a punishment, to destroy him with bitterness of soul for having acted wickedly 12a against his elect.

1QpHab, columns 11-12, lines 2b-17 & 1-10: 2b

«Woe to anyone making his companion drunk, spilling out 3 his anger, or even making him drunk to look at their festivals» (= Habakkuk 2.15)! 4 ~ Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest who 5 pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to consume him with the heat 6 of his anger in the place of his banishment.

4Q163, fragments 4-6, column 1, lines 6-7: 6

[.... «And YHWH has cut off from Israel head and tail, reed and ru]sh in one day» (= Isaiah 9.14; refer to verse 15, as well). The old 7 and of radiant face, he is the head; and the prophet, the Teacher of Lies,] he is the tail.

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:

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.


All of this is from Isaiah 53 and Jesus checks off all the boxes. We are not on this kind of thing with the Teacher. When we read the Pesharim, we see that their authors interpret the prophets in the light of the Teacher's life. Clumsily.

On the one hand we have the Teacher:

- Whose life is interpreted awkwardly or loosely on the scriptures
- Whom his disciples call the founder of the Qu'mran covenant
- Who taught his disciples
- Who is said to have been persecuted by a wicked priest which gives a historical framework
- And most scholars even attribute to him the authorship of the Hodayot text

And on the other side we have :

- a pre-existent character
- co-agent of creation
- resurrected
- Exalted in Heaven
- who communicates with his apostles through supernatural visions
- and who ticks all the boxes of the servant (Isaiah 53)

This obviously tends to make the teacher more human than Jesus in Paul.
There is no doubt about 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

.

It is common to give names, even to mythical characters. The angel Raphael has a name, for example. Hadassah (Esther) has a name. Judith has a name. I don't think that Paul calling his lord by the name of Jesus is a decisive argument.

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.

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.

I didn't make you an apologist but it seems to me that most researchers consider 1 Pierre to be a forgery except for conservative scholars and so Richard Carrier. The latter obviously uses this letter because it is useful for his agenda. Personally, I think it would be better to focus only on Paul rather than on a dubious letter like 1 Peter.

[dbz]

I think it would be better to focus only on Paul rather than on a dubious letter like 1 Peter.

A focus on Paul may be further narrowed:

• Marcion Paul,
• Markan Paul,
• Orthodox Paul

Cf. "Marcan Priority and the Pauline Collection - R.G. Price". YouTube. History Valley.

Modifications to the Pauline letters happen at each point along the way in the editorial process.

GospelSources_8.gif (125.26 KiB) Viewed 477 times

[davidmartin]

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.

This list here could be fixed to pretty much any guy that was executed back then, Paul could have picked from any of the recently executed men especially if they were leading some religious group, then stuck his interpretation on him
so a historical Jesus might have really died, only to find the apostle says all this stuff about him with his new fangled gospel
probability is - if there was a historical Jesus the apostle wasn't teaching the same thing he was

so to the minimalist Jesus could also be added "doesn't agree with the apostle Paul"

[Sinouhe]

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.

This list here could be fixed to pretty much any guy that was executed back then, Paul could have picked from any of the recently executed men especially if they were leading some religious group, then stuck his interpretation on him
so a historical Jesus might have really died, only to find the apostle says all this stuff about him with his new fangled gospel
probability is - if there was a historical Jesus the apostle wasn't teaching the same thing he was

so to the minimalist Jesus could also be added "doesn't agree with the apostle Paul"

Yes, if we had credible informations about the life of Jesus outside of Isaiah 53.

But we have 7 letters that are supposed to be authentic and almost all the informations that we found in these letters on this character are being found in the chapter of Isaiah 53.

This is more than doubtful, especially when the person who wrote these 7 letters tells us that Jesus was the co-creator of the world and that he was pre-existent.

A divine, pre-existent person whose life informations come only from the book Isaiah and who communicates through supernatural visions to few chosen ones = i really don't see the absolute need for some to imagine that there is a man behind this.

[davidmartin]

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

[andrewcriddle]

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.

The almost technical language used for the witnesses, the twelve, brethren, the Apostles, is probably best explained as appearances to members of a preexisting community.

Andrew Criddle

[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.

The almost technical language used for the witnesses, the twelve, brethren, the Apostles, is probably best explained as appearances to members of a preexisting community.

Andrew Criddle

I agree. But why assume that the pre-existing community predated Jesus's death - or that the predeath community had been founded and had been dedicated to a living Jesus?

[dbz]

[W]hy assume that the pre-existing community predated Jesus's death - or that the predeath community had been founded and had been dedicated to a living Jesus?

• There could have been sects revering or expecting the Great angel as not having died prior to the formation of Peter's novel dead redeemer cult.

The distinguishing characteristic of a Christian sect would be the archangel Jesus having died. There is no evidence Paul knew of any Christian sect preaching “another kind of death.”

Though I should have qualified by noting Paul is never clear on what sort of death is meant. The words he uses also referred to standard Jewish executions (as for example by stoning). I cite scholarship and evidence of that in OHJ (pp. 61-62). So, for example, the sect outside the Roman Empire that preached Christ was stoned and then crucified, by the Jews (OHJ, Ch. 8.1; which Paul could be referring to, as he is sufficiently vague) could be more original than the souped up version invented possibly by Mark that has the Romans do it in collusion with the Jews.

Other than that, there probably were pre-Christian sects (one of which probably became Christian, by novel revelation) that did revere the archangel Jesus and probably even taught he would be the coming messiah, but had not yet come to the conclusion that he’d died to effect his plans, thus had already initiated the end times timetable. There are hints in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the sect(s) represented there did have some such view (and may even have written up pesher prophecies of that angel’s future planned death). But we don’t know that for sure, we don’t know if the only such sect simply became Christianity, we don’t know if any members of that sect protested the revelation and stuck to the original timetable and thus broke away, we don’t know if there were other sects never impacted by the revelation who continued preaching their own thing. Paul does say there were sects preaching “another Jesus” whom the Christians should shun. So those could have been any of the above, for example.

Another way to look at it is: the manner of death was too trivial to have a schism over at that point, especially as Paul is so vague about it—and you don’t go vague on a point that’s creating schisms; that’s what creeds are for: to demarcate what’s valid and what’s anathema. So clearly there were no anathemas regarding means of the killing; vagueness would at best mean an intent to “big tent” the movement and unite schisms. Notice that by the time we get to Ignatius, now the manner of death is a schism point built into the creed, indicating that by then there certainly were sects disagreeing (though exactly what they were disagreeing on or why we can only speculate). But that’s almost a hundred years later. But there could well have been sects still revering or expecting the Jesus angel as not having died, and who (like possibly Philo) thought it absurd that he would ever do so, and/or who (like possibly the Qumran sect) thought it was not time yet for it to happen, who were competing with Christian sects. They could be the “other Jesus’s” Paul talks about. But we sadly just don’t know.

---

--Comment by Richard Carrier—23 May 2018—per "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs. 26 April 2018.

[andrewcriddle]

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.

The almost technical language used for the witnesses, the twelve, brethren, the Apostles, is probably best explained as appearances to members of a preexisting community.

Andrew Criddle

I agree. But why assume that the pre-existing community predated Jesus's death - or that the predeath community had been founded and had been dedicated to a living Jesus?

These suggestions are formal possibilities but AFAIK there is no positive evidence whatever to support them.

Andrew Criddle

[Sinouhe]

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.