The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

[Sinouhe]

This random and almost unknown Jew whom Christians called Jesus is not attested by any document from the first century

Apart from the gospel of Thomas
So a mystical preacher who gains a following by his teachings is later (add a few decades and some wars in between) the Christ of the Christians
He gets exalted, then his actual teachings are steamrollered and even his death is repurposed by a new influx of charismatic late entrants to the party who "know the real message" (ie their own message). Soon anyone merely adhering to the original guys ideas is labelled a heretic - for failing to "get with the program". The apostle Paul is one of the chief of these renegades, and there may be Judaics who further muddy the waters using him to advance their version of Judaism. Then, all these new guys start fighting with each other over who is authentic when none of them are. All we see are fragments of the original, except the Gospel of Thomas preserves his basic teachings which undermine the whole freaking lot of them
That's the simplest most distilled down explanation.

It would still be necessary to demonstrate that Thomas is a text prior to Paul and Mark. This is very complicated.

[davidmartin]

Of course, that's what those who advocate this are saying and have arguments to demonstrate it and counter arguments to criticism
All the theories are complicated, it is no different from any other
The problem is that it isn't treated as a valid theory, but if it isn't a valid theory why so much time spent trying to undermine Thomas?
It is as if Thomas threatens certain existing theories so it is not given a fair hearing, that the status quo is preferable, no matter how dishonest it is to prefer the status quo because it would puncture too many ego's and make 'experts' look foolish.. so what. none of that matters.

[rgprice]

But the evidence suggests that, rather than his life, it was his death and believed ascension to heaven that was important. I doubt that many people on this board would disagree with that. Furthermore, I speculate that it wasn't until the proto-orthodox were challenged by Marcion in the Second Century that the Gospels, written around the end of the First Century and the start of the Second Century, took on importance among Christians. Prior to that, Christians argued over the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus and how it conformed to the Old Testament.

How do Paul view the pre-crucified Christ? First, note that Paul writes how Jesus, born of a woman and of the seed of David, became Son of God (with power) at the resurrection:

No, no no.

Firstly, "ascension into heaven" or "resurrection" are not real things. The worship of Jesus could not have started from witnessing his resurrection, because such a thing didn't happen. That's a mystical belief that is associated either with pure stories (of which we have dozens of examples from Jewish lore) or mystical experiences like those of mystery religions involving sweat houses and mushrooms and sleep deprivation, etc. In either case, no real person is at the root of the vision.

"Believed ascension"? Believed based on what? Why would anyone believe such a thing?

This is the thing, there are literally over 20 totally made up Jewish stories involving this type of stuff. Elijah and Elisha, Moses, Joseph and Anaseth, Balaam, I mean the list goes on and on. Those are all entirely made-up stories, with zero basis in reality. We know with 100% certainty that Jewish writers, along with anyone else from the period, made up stories about this very type of thing. We know that FOR SURE!

Let's take the non-Jewish story of Publius, recorded in the Book of Wonders. I'll provide here a summary of it by classicist David Potter:

After receiving the Delphic oracle, the Romans were withdrawing toward Naupactus when an officer names Publius fell into a prophetic fit and predicted that the Romans would suffer disaster on their way home from the conquest of Asia. When asked to explain what this meant, Publius described, in reasonable detail, what would occur during the rest of the war with Antiochus. He also said that the returning army would be attacked by Thracians and lose some of its booty. He then fell into another prophetic fit and predicted, in verse, the destruction of Rome at the hands of an invading army; then, speaking in prose, that a large red wolf would come to devour him, thus proving that he had spoken the truth. The wolf duly arrived and ate Publius, leaving only the head, which once against bust into prophetic song, telling the Romans that Athena hated them, and that she would destroy Italy and drag its people off into slavery. The account ends with the statement that “hearing these words, they [the Romans] were deeply upset and established a temple and altar of Apollo Lyceus Where the head had lain and got onto their ships and each one went to his own land. All these things that Publius predicted have come true.”

This story is likely from the 1st century BCE. No one, not a single classicist, argues that this story is based in any way on any real events. The story is understood as propaganda that was entirely invented by the writer. J. R. Morgan notes, “close analysis of the passage demonstrates that the whole thing is a farrago put together by a redactor during the Mithridatic War, adapting and combining narrative and prophetic material from several earlier contexts. From the perspective of 88 B.C. the piece is clear propaganda of resistance to Rome, using earlier oracles to demonstrate its own validity but also pointing to future defeats for the Romans which never in fact occurred.”

No one thinks that the Publius of this story is based on a real person, no one. Yet, at the time, this story and many more like it were believed to be literally true by most people! The story of Jesus is one of these types of stories that people at the time thought were true, but were in fact totally made up by writers.

There is truly one, and only one, reason that anyone thought Jesus was a real person, and that is the Gospel stories. Without the Gospel stories no one today would even have heard of Jesus. But here is the thing. There have been centuries of attempts to explain the origin of the Gospel stories as having been rooted in some kind of real history, but clearly all of those explanations fail. They are clearly not first-hand accounts, as once believed. They are not based on "oral tradition" as theologians have tried to argue to save their credibility. The stories are provably derived from scriptural references.

And as I show in my book and in the presentation History Valley, its not simply the fact that the details are all derived from scriptures, its the fact that the scriptures that serve as the basis for the story all relate to the destruction of the temple. What that means it that the story was conceived after the destruction of the temple, in reaction to it.

The main theme of the narrative is based on the story of Elijah and Elisha. Why is that? Because the story of Elijah and Elisha is what sets the stage for the fall of the First Temple. Elijah and Elisha predict the fall of the northern kingdom. They are then followed by Isaiah, who predicts the fall of the southern kingdom.

Clearly, the writer of what we call Mark is interpreting the events of the First Jewish-Roman War through the lens of the past events that led up the destruction of the First Temple. "Oops we did it again!"

And at this point I am quit certain that the Pauline letters also originated in response to the destruction of the temple. The whole entire theology all derives out of the post-war conditions in which militant messianism had been crushed, the ideology of the priesthood had been refuted, the temple was gone, and the God of Israel had once again appeared to reject the status quo, evidenced by the fact that he "allowed" the Romans to destroy his house! So clearly the priesthood had to be wrong about how they interpreted the scriptures. That's what the destruction of the temple meant. Mosaic law and its application must have been wrong, otherwise God wouldn't have allowed the Romans to destroy his house. This is ultimately what the Gospel narratives are about, and it is indeed what the Pauline letters are about.

And as for "what Paul writes". That's just hogwash. No specific passage in the Pauline letters can be pointed to and claimed that, "that's what Paul wrote". Not a word of it. Those letters are literally useless to try and form any kind of theory around. It is 100% certain that the letters contain a significant amount of redaction and interpolation. We have no idea what is now missing from what was originally written. We have no idea how many hands have been involved in the process. We have no idea if the letters as we have them are 90% original or 10% original. Literally no idea. You can't point to anything in those letters and say, "According to this, it must be so."

I have no doubt that there are Marcionite revisions in the letters and far less than no doubt that there are proto-orthodox revisions. What portion of the letters were written in the 2nd century? Could be anywhere from 20% to 100%, but its at least 20%. So, don't try to formulate theories based on specific passages in the Pauline letters, those are useless. And as for Thomas. Thomas is late, derived from reading multiple Gospels. Even if Thomas or other elements of Christian literature do have some kind of Aramaic origin, that does nothing to establish an earlier dating of the material.

[Leucius Charinus]

I have no doubt that there are Marcionite revisions in the letters and far less than no doubt that there are proto-orthodox revisions. What portion of the letters were written in the 2nd century? Could be anywhere from 20% to 100%, but its at least 20%. So, don't try to formulate theories based on specific passages in the Pauline letters, those are useless.

To what extent does your certainty in the opinions expressed above rely upon (or are influenced by) specific passages in the heresiological literature of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus?

[GakuseiDon]

"Believed ascension"? Believed based on what? Why would anyone believe such a thing?

Lots of people have reported visions of revered people after their deaths. I don't see it as implausible that early Christians had visions of Christ after his death, due to shamanistic ceremonies and perhaps drug taking. Paul reports of assemblies that resulted in prophecies and in speaking in tongues. Paul himself boasted of this ability:

1 Cor 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all

The use of the availability of magic based by having a friendly available source in heaven is what drove the development of early Christianity, according to my own theory of Christian origins. Certainly a large part of that were visions of a risen Jesus. It's not important whether the visions were real or fiction: people believed them. They have been a source of profit since the dawn of time.

There is truly one, and only one, reason that anyone thought Jesus was a real person, and that is the Gospel stories. Without the Gospel stories no one today would even have heard of Jesus. But here is the thing. There have been centuries of attempts to explain the origin of the Gospel stories as having been rooted in some kind of real history, but clearly all of those explanations fail. They are clearly not first-hand accounts, as once believed. They are not based on "oral tradition" as theologians have tried to argue to save their credibility. The stories are provably derived from scriptural references.

Right, and that goes back to the point that I made in my OP about using the fallacy of "the newspaper reporter's Jesus" and Dr Carrier's argument about 1 Clement being dated to the 60s. Based on what I've highlighted above, you seem to use the same fallacy all the time -- no disrespect meant!

For example: If an evolutionist argues with a Young Earth Creationist over the issues of using radioactive dating of fossils, using YEC claims to do so is perfectly valid. But if an evolutionist wants to argue over whether a fossil is 100 million years old or 200 million years old, what does it matter what YECs claim? It's irrelevant.

That's the problem I see in Dr Carrier's article. Carrier argues that the mainstream dating of 1 Clement to the 90s CE is not supportable based on mainstream views of Gospels built up on oral traditions, so that the Gospels more-or-less reflect what Jesus said or did. Fair enough!

Then he dates 1 Clement to the 60s CE... and he is still partly arguing based on what theologians are claiming! But those theologian claims are irrelevant to his theory. His argument about when to date 1 Clement should be consistent with his own theory.

As I pointed out in my OP, there are two premises being used by Carrier: "The Gospels were made up from the Old Testament" AND "people of the time should have noted the Gospel events". Both premises can't be true.

Some examples: from Dr Carrier's article:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/22313

I list many specific examples of Clement’s ignorance of the Gospels in OHJ (Ch. 8.5):

• When they say that everyone should accept their place and serve one another and not try to be exalted (§37-38), they don’t think to tell the story about how Jesus admonished James and John on that very same point (Mk. 10:35-35).
• They cannot even adduce any story of Jesus’ humility and submission to include among their examples admonishing the Corinthians to be humble and submissive (§14-15); they can only assure them that the Old Testament says Jesus was humble and submissive (§16).
• In §16 they say “the Holy Spirit” tells us that Christ “did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance . . . but in a lowly condition,” and then cite Isaiah 53. Not any actual story about or witness to Jesus.

If Carrier believes that the life of Jesus was constructed from the Old Testament, then it's natural that early Christians should refer to that source when discussing Jesus... regardless of whether they thought Jesus was historical or not. The importance of the Old Testament is clear whether the writer was a 'mythicist' like Paul or a 'historicist' like Justin Martyr. There is no need to refer to the Gospels unless you believe that the Gospels were more authoritative as the source for Jesus's life than the OT. Carrier doesn't believe that's the case personally, nor do most of the people on this board. The Gospels weren't authoritative until the Second Century, probably as a reaction to Marcion. So I don't why Carrier can't date 1 Clement to the 90s CE, if he is being consistent with his own theory. Carrier is stuck with arguing against a Gospel Jesus rather than for his own theory.

And I see you doing the same thing, as your example of throwing in what theologians believe about oral traditions. That's fine, if you are arguing against theologian arguments. But too often you'll be building an argument that is logically consistent within your theory and then suddenly you throw in something about theologians! It's like someone shouting "squirrel" in the movie "UP!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Faa2dHJNFqQ

[MrMacSon]

... The "newspaper reporter's Jesus" is...the idea that the historical Jesus has to conform to a version of a man who did and said amazing things, such that even if the apostles hadn't thought him to have been resurrected and ascended to heaven, that people would have written about him anyway. So, something along the lines of "he was so amazing we would have expected him to have appeared in the newspaper-equivalents even without the resurrection". But I don't think the evidence bears this out, as per the texts below.

This came to mind again when I read through Dr Richard Carrier's article about 1 Clement on his blog from a few weeks back. Part of his reasoning for dating 1 Clement to the 60s CE is what the letter DOESN'T say about Jesus's Gospel activities and sayings. I also see the same view popping up here all the time as well: "The Gospels were made up from the Old Testament" AND "people of the time should have noted the Gospel events". Both expectations can't be true.

But the evidence suggests that, rather than his life, it was his death and believed ascension to heaven that was important. I doubt that many people on this board would disagree with that. Furthermore, I speculate that it wasn't until the proto-orthodox were challenged by Marcion in the Second Century that the Gospels, written around the end of the First Century and the start of the Second Century, took on importance among Christians. Prior to that, Christians argued over the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus and how it conformed to the Old Testament.

How do Paul view the pre-crucified Christ? First, note that Paul writes how Jesus, born of a woman and of the seed of David, became Son of God (with power) at the resurrection:

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Prior to his death, Paul's Jesus humbled himself, becoming obedient "unto death" which is why God exalted him:

Phl 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

We see something similar in Hebrews: Jesus learning obedience in life and then being offered "without spot" to God:

Heb 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ...
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In the Acts of the Apostles, written after the Gospels, the author does note that Jesus performed miracles, but writes that Paul convinced his audience through arguments based on the Hebrew Scriptures:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
...
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

We can also see the importance of 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures in Justin Martyr's Dialogue in Trypho. He also uses Hebrew Scriptures in his Apologies to the Emperors.

What I suggest is that the Gospels were built from pericopes that developed via arguments over 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus himself was thought to be a humble man who was known for demonstrating obedience to God. If there is anything at all historical in the Gospels, it has been submerged by the importance of 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. This means that the historical Jesus has been largely lost to us.

I've found that the analysis of mythicists like Dr Carrier relies too much on a historical Jesus being the "newspaper reporter's Jesus". But this ignores how Jesus is described in Paul and Hebrews. And given that most of us here thinks that much of the Gospels have been crafted from the Old Testament in the first place, it seems contradictory to then find it as unexpected. Both can't be true.

Any thoughts/criticisms are welcomed!

You've obliquely set up a false dichotomy between "newspaper-equivalents" and what were essentially that—ie. Paul's letters—while also essentially saying, 'the apostles didn't write enough about him' AND "people of the time should have noted 'the Gospel events'."

• ie. you've admitted with that statement—"people of the time should have noted the Gospel events"—that it's weird that the apostles didn't note 'the Gospel events'.

You admit that

... the Gospels were built from pericopes that developed via arguments over 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures ...

If there is anything at all historical in the Gospels, it has been submerged by the importance of 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures.

When you next say —

This means that the historical Jesus has been largely lost to us.

— you're admitting he's never really ever been revealed to us.


You appeal to "how Jesus is described in Paul and Hebrews", but you ignore the way he is 'revealed' to us in those texts: globally and specifically.

For example:

How do Paul view the pre-crucified Christ? First, note that Paul writes how Jesus, born of a woman and of the seed of David, became Son of God (with power) at the resurrection:

Rom 1:3-4
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

Regarding —

"the pre-crucified Christ" ... "which was made of the seed of David" [and] "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

— being "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" doesn't make one human; and "which" versus 'who' makes him seem less human; as does "was made" as Tertullian noted.

These also negate human-ness:

• "being in the form of God," Phil 2:5; and
• "being found in fashion as a man," Phil 2:8.

Being "in the days of his flesh" (Hebrews 8:5) only shows it was very likely he was thought to have visited earth, not been born on it.


In trying to argue 'we should not be expecting better early accounts of the life of Jesus,' you've obliquely admitted that there should have been.


I can only think of metaphors to address this, which is somewhat ironic, given what the NT stories are:

• 'You've shot the historicist argument in the foot'
• 'You've belled the cat'

[MrMacSon]

There is truly one, and only one, reason that anyone thought Jesus was a real person, and that is the Gospel stories. Without the Gospel stories no one today would even have heard of Jesus. But here is the thing. There have been centuries of attempts to explain the origin of the Gospel stories as having been rooted in some kind of real history, but clearly all of those explanations fail. They are clearly not first-hand accounts, as once believed. They are not based on "oral tradition" as theologians [and others] have tried to argue to save their credibility. The stories are provably derived from scriptural references.

• I Agree.

And it seems so does G'Don in the OP:

What I suggest is that the Gospels were built from pericopes that developed via arguments over 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures ... the importance of 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures

eta:
though there may have been less arguments over 'finding' Christ in the [LXX version of] Hebrew Scriptures and more reading over others' shoulders -and even collaboration- among those interested in the emerging lore: it's likely that they would have fed off each other

[GakuseiDon]

You've obliquely set up a false dichotomy between "newspaper-equivalents" and what were essentially that—ie. Paul's letters—while also essentially saying, 'the apostles didn't write enough about him' AND "people of the time should have noted 'the Gospel events'."

• ie. you've admitted with that statement—"people of the time should have noted the Gospel events"—that it's weird that the apostles didn't note 'the Gospel events'.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, I'm sorry. I'm certainly addressing a false dichotomy: (1) the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man, and (2) the Gospels were built from passages in the OT based on the suffering and death of a man/angel. If Dr Carrier or rgprice construct a theory where (2) is true, then noting how (1) is false tells us nothing about (2). As per my previous example: it's like evolutionists discussing evolution. There is no need to discuss creationist views. They are irrelevant, they tell us nothing about evolution. Unless creationism was being addressed specifically, it would be odd to bring in creationist views into discussions about evolution.

Not that I want to pick on rgprice in particular, but you can see how he brings in the views of theologians up above. Are they relevant to his theory? No. If Dr Carrier's theory or rgprice's theory became mainstream, no-one would need to address how the Gospels were built on oral traditions of an actual man. It would be irrelevant to their theories.

In trying to argue 'we should not be expecting better early accounts of the life of Jesus,' you've obliquely admitted that there should have been.

I don't see how. I gave passages that suggest to me that Jesus was "humble", "emptied of reputation", etc, which isn't consistent to the idea of a "newspaper reporter's Jesus". Would a humble man who came as a servant have been noticeable to the 'newspaper reporter' equivalents of the time? I doubt it.

I can only think of metaphors to address this, which is somewhat ironic, given what the NT stories are:

• 'You've shot the historicist argument in the foot'

As long as my aim is true, feet beware!

[MrMacSon]

... I'm certainly addressing a false dichotomy: (1) the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man, and (2) the Gospels were built from passages in the OT based on the suffering and death of a man/angel.

No, you're not [addressing a dichotomy], let alone a false one.

You admitted

"that the Gospels were built from pericopes that developed via arguments over 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures"

But you still want, as you say in the next sentence,

Jesus himself [to be] thought to be a humble man who was known for demonstrating obedience to God.

You then revert to supporting that first sentence [of that paragraph]:

If there is anything at all historical in the Gospels, it has been submerged by the importance of 'finding' Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. This means that the historical Jesus has been largely lost to us.

(You also tried to appeal to Paul as taking about a human Jesus; but that's highly debateable: I refer you and others to my post above)

If Dr Carrier or rgprice construct a theory where (2) is true, then noting how (1) is false tells us nothing about (2).

Sure. And they haven't just constructed a theory about (2) - "the Gospels were built from passages in the OT" - they've written substantive arguments in books and blogposts about that.

Yet (1) - whether "the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man" - is, afaics, unknowable.

And many people agree, especially all those who say, 'all we can know about Jesus is he was crucified' (&, by implication, born as a human on earth)

In trying to argue 'we should not be expecting better early accounts of the life of Jesus,' you've obliquely admitted that there should have been.

I don't see how. I gave passages that suggest to me that Jesus was "humble", "emptied of reputation", etc, which isn't consistent to the idea of a "newspaper reporter's Jesus". Would a humble man who came as a servant have been noticeable to the 'newspaper reporter' equivalents of the time? I doubt it.

You gave wish-washy passages from the Pauline Epistles, including from Philippians 2:5-11 which many people, including many scholars, think are about Jesus being an angel; Hebrews; and Acts of the Apostles, which were largely written to reify Paul and other 'apostles', as the passages yo selected shows.

eta
And, as I noted, Paul's and others' letters in those days would have (or indeed could have) been the equivalent of newspapers (in the case of conveying accounts of Jesus to a wider audience; as you virtually admit)


As for you trying to invoke and have a dig at Carrier and rgprice:

... back to the point that I made in my OP about using the fallacy of "the newspaper reporter's Jesus" and Dr Carrier's argument about 1 Clement being dated to the 60s. Based on what I've highlighted above, you seem to use the same fallacy all the time -- no disrespect meant!

• No, none. at. all /sarcasm (and I've addressed your fallacy fallacy (sic) in this post)

... in Dr Carrier's article ...

... Carrier argues ...

... Carrier ...

... from Dr Carrier's article ...

... If Carrier believes ...

... Carrier doesn't believe ...

... So I don't why Carrier can't date ...

... Carrier is stuck ....

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It would still be necessary to demonstrate that Thomas is a text prior to Paul and Mark. This is very complicated.

The problem is that it isn't treated as a valid theory, but if it isn't a valid theory why so much time spent trying to undermine Thomas?

That's funny.

imho "we others" are totally generous when it comes to you Thomasians. Nobody attacks you seriously. It's much more important to me to learn a little more about GThomas here and there than to discuss your pov (Thomasian priority). Basically, I'm glad you're here and making your contributions. And it seems to me that some others feel the same way.