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

[Paul the Uncertain]

I do appreciate your thoughtful and detailed reply. It sounds like I'd do best to wait for this thread:

Going even further: I'd say that the Ebionites were the earliest Christians, and I'll probably create a thread with my theory that 'Ebion' was a code name for James the Just (warning: speculation!), like Saul/Paul and Cephas/Peter. The Ebionites thought that Jesus was Christ by election due to his virtue. They believed that anyone could have become the Christ had they been virtuous enough. Jesus Christ was apparently virtuous enough. As I posted in my OP: 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.

That's how I see Paul's thinking about Jesus. But that's a post for another day.

I can see how a (hypothetical, but grounded in extant texts) brother of the "baptized-then-crucified" guy might bridge the gap between the guy and Paul's soon-afterward belief that the guy was "obedient" unto death. So, I'll wait for the details.

Meanwhile, just a comment:

I believe that Paul was one of many independent religious entrepreneur who took advantage of the new heavenly Jesus Christ power, and ran travelling miracle shows. This was being done by all the apostles. The Christ appearances in 1 Cor were invoked during those travelling shows and are what attracted growing numbers of converts, Jewish and pagan, to the movement. This is what led to the large variety of Christian groups in the First Century CE: Marcion, Valentius, Simon Magus, Ebionites, etc. All of it was driven by Christ dying and being raised to heaven, and not driven by a Gospel Jesus going around and performing miracles. The Gospel Jesus didn't become important until the mid-Second Century.

The latter part about Paul and his travelling miracle shows is speculation but it is based on what we find in the early Christian texts.

I am very sympathetic to the overall picture you paint here. I would add, however, that the painting looks the same to me whether the now-heavenly Jesus Christ power was once a real man who actually lived, or instead was somebody whom entrepreneurs like Paul inferred from the Jewish scriptures and/or encountered in visionary experiences.

Maybe something about that will come up in that future thread.

[Leucius Charinus]

I think my theory is consistent with what we see in Paul and other early epistles.

Can you list the assumptions that are being used as the foundation stones for your theory? For example I would suggest:

* Paul was an historical figure who lived in the 1st century.
* Paul wrote at least some of the letters attributed to him.

* Mark - was he historical?
* Peter - was he historical?

* A community of "early Christians" was responsible for the transmission of the gospels and the letters of Paul to the 4th century at which time they were used as political instruments of the orthodox Nicene imperial state church.

[dbz]

FWIW: I've never read Carrier

Recommended reading, esp. Lataster. Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.

Carrier, Richard (2014). “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?”. The Bible and Interpretation.

• Carrier, Richard (2015).”Foreword” ap. Lataster 2015.
• Carrier, Richard (2020a). Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63431-208-0.
• Carrier, Richard (2020b). “Jesus from Outer Space?”. The Bible and Interpretation.

• Lataster, Raphael (2015). Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-5148-1442-0.

MISC.:
• Lataster, Raphael (2016). “Review Essay: Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus”. Literature & Aesthetics 26 (1): 181–192. ISSN 2200-0437. (Online PDF)
• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934.

• Law, Stephen (2011). “Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus”. Faith and Philosophy 28 (2): 129–151. doi:10.5840/faithphil20112821. (Available Online)
• Raphael Lataster (2016). “IT’S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS’ HISTORICAL EXISTENCE [caps shout sic]”. Think 15 (43): 65–79. doi:10.1017/S1477175616000117.
‣ Brenda Watson (2018). “An Unbelievable Myth: The Invention of Jesus?”. Think 17 (50): 51–56. doi:10.1017/S1477175618000209.
• Raphael Lataster (2019). “Defending Jesus Agnosticism”. Think 18 (51): 77–91. doi:10.1017/S1477175618000362.

[dbz]

• "Scholars Against Jesus Mythicism". YouTube. History Valley. Nov 11, 2022.

Transcript

t=48

WALSH >>> [Do you mean] the mythicist position being Jesus never existed?

HOST >>> yes

WALSH >>> yeah no I think he existed.

t=94

STAVRAKOPOULOU >>> I'm kind of radical in a lot of ways but I'm not that radical. There was probably a guy or maybe a series of guys or leaders but you know one of them is executed and it was devastating um I don't obviously I don't think he resurrected from the dead it's more probable than improbable that some guy existed and was executed.

t=186

STAVRAKOPOULOU >>> So I think it's a relatively short period of time between the writings of say Paul, which are like mid-50's and the likely execution that occurred.

t=218

WALSH >>> I don't think Paul was readily accepted by his own testimony by those in Jerusalem Peter and James um he named specifically uh and and I don't see much of a benefit to Paul um assuming that that's genuine to Paul those claims um making that up uh because it establishes his uh justification for being what he calls the Apostle to the Gentiles so something was happening in Jerusalem in the wake of this man we call Jesus.

t=604

WALSH >>> I think that that is an indication that there there are too many arguments to say that there was a man named Jesus do I think he looks like the gentleman that we have presented to us in the gospels know I do not yeah but I I do think

STAVRAKOPOULOU >>> We know there are lots of these kinds of figures wandering around honey the circle drawer is one of my favorites you know he had his methods basically drawing circles and standing in them um but you know the kind of John the Baptist Jesus thing that looks to me like a massive kind of polemic as a way of trying to say what's the relationship between these two figures you know John the Baptist had his head cut off this Jesus guy you know was crucified so you've got two kind of executed figures who have been brought together that to me suggests that there's somebody that's trying to reconcile these two popular kind of cult leaders.

[dbz]

You're turning apologetic, Don.
[...]
But the choice is not between and HJ or an MJ, the choice is very simple really: there is no evidence for any living Jesus ever having lived, and most certainly there will never be any evidence for someone performing miracles and riding from the dead
[...]
the entire quest for a historical Jesus is nothing but narcissistic self-gratification and religious masturbation - and yours is particularly so as your HJ has turned out to be an MJ

Philip J. Rayment, a former Conservapedia editor, argues:

“”The fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there. The argument presumes that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a circular argument. That is, the argument is based on the presumption that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false[2]

While Rayment’s argument is logical, it is irrelevant as it ignores or misinterprets almost the entire point of the original argument.

---

"Russell's Teapot". RationalWiki.

NB:

But the choice is not between and HJ or an MJ, the choice is very simple really: there is no evidence for any living Jesus ever having lived, and most certainly there will never be any evidence for someone performing miracles and riding from the dead

I'd argue that Paul is evidence for some kind of Jesus, a man who lived in Paul's recent past: a Jew, seed of David, first-fruits of the resurrection. All those things that have been argued often on this board. People disagree, and that's fine.

What I'd like to point out is that few people think that there was a Gospel Jesus, so it is inconsistent to see meaning in a Gospel Jesus not appearing in Paul (for those people who do that).

[mlinssen]

But the choice is not between and HJ or an MJ, the choice is very simple really: there is no evidence for any living Jesus ever having lived, and most certainly there will never be any evidence for someone performing miracles and riding from the dead

I'd argue that Paul is evidence for some kind of Jesus, a man who lived in Paul's recent past: a Jew, seed of David, first-fruits of the resurrection. All those things that have been argued often on this board. People disagree, and that's fine.

What I'd like to point out is that few people think that there was a Gospel Jesus, so it is inconsistent to see meaning in a Gospel Jesus not appearing in Paul (for those people who do that).

I'd certainly agree that Paul of all people is defending his image of his dead Jesus (the Christ) in a much more fierce way then any of his presumed buddies did when he was alive - Paul is fighting for his religion here in all possible ways, playing every card up his sleeve, trying all the tricks in the book - that can not be disputed

Does Paul Judaise that Jesus? Absolutely. Does he Gentilise him? Absolutely.
And that is where the eyebrows start to frown, or at least should, because whereas the Jesus of the gospels is a fairly static figure (the completely unexpected and unannounced Messiah with a mind of his own, basically), the Christ of Paul is more malleable than the average fraternity foet (sic)

Naturally that Christ has to have resurrected or the entire source to Paul dries up - if there's no resurrected Christ then there can be no ramblings of Paul, period

But is Paul evidence to any living Jesus? No, Paul is the worst business case for a living Jesus really - he's a splendid gladiator for a dead one alone

And yes, people disagree. And none of any of this really matters, or at all. Integrity matters

[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

[Giuseppe]

the most obvious interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is that Paul believed that Jesus had before his death a group of followers

doesn't the mythicism say the same thing? I.e. that the first apostles believed that Jesus was divine even before he descended in lower heavens to be crucified. Really, the Ascension of Isaiah (and, why not?, also the Hymn to Philippians) attests that same 'fact': that 'Isaiah' was persuaded by a revelation in heaven that the Beloved one was the 'Christ' even before his 'real' descent.

[dbz]

I think that one should add to the very minimal Jesus being proposed here, the claim that Jesus had a group of followers.

Carrier gives the following:

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

That all three propositions are true shall be my minimal theory of historicity.

Of course, there were thousands of men named Jesus in every generation of Jews. It was one of the most common Jewish names (it’s actually, in fact, the name Joshua). And there were surely many men so named who were executed by Pontius Pilate or any Jewish court in any decade you choose. So we aren't asking about whether some Jesus got himself executed. We are asking specifically about the Jesus whose execution launched the Christian religion. And in that role, Jesus might not even have been his original name, but a name assigned him after his death. The name means, after all, “God’s Savior.” Most scholars already conclude he was not called Christ, from the Greek for Messiah (literally, “an anointed one,” hence “chosen one”), until after his death. The same may be true of “Jesus.” If after his martyrdom his closest followers, reassured by dreams and visions of his spiritual victory, started calling him “God's Savior and Messiah,” they would be calling him “Jesus Christ.” So he might not have even originally been called Jesus!

So really, what we need to ask is, was there at least a Jewish man (by whatever name) who gathered a following and then was executed (whether by a Jewish court or Roman) and who had some followers, led by Peter (or “Cephas” in Aramaic), who became convinced God had resurrected and exalted him to be their Lord and Savior, the true and final Messiah for all time? If we can be certain of only just that, that would be enough to settle that there was a historical “Jesus” who started the Christian religion. Even if it turned out this all happened in the 70s B.C. Or any time and place.

But there has to have been at least that. Otherwise, no such man, no such Jesus.

---

--Carrier, Richard (2020). Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. Pitchstone Publishing.

[maryhelena]

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

So....Paul says his Christ figure died, was buried but rose alive and was seen by some people. Since, taken literally, this is nonsense , why on earth should one take the 'eyewitness' as flesh and blood humans rather than being part and parcel of the fanatical storyline ?

And anyway, adding a few hundred nobodies to a nobody Jesus is hardly going to add credibility to the nobody Jesus theory. That theory is nothing but a historicist surrender, it's white flag of defeat.