Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GDon asked:

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

How likely is it that the "historical Teacher of Righteousness" was how he is presented in the DSS? Like the gospels, the DSS say that the OT "predicted" the life and times of their leader, including his death.

At the end of the day, in both cases I think what we have is a certain type of religious Jew, and in my view that type is Fourth Philosophic, since both teachers taught against the oral Torah of the Pharisees but otherwise subscribed to what Josephus calls "Pharisaic notions" (namely resurrection of the dead), and this is the calling card of the Fourth Philosophy and no other sect that Josephus mentions. And both leaders interpreted the OT to be about them and the coming of a singular Messiah figure (which was the primary inspiration of the Fourth Philosophy). And I'm inclined to see this type of religious Jew like the ones Josephus describes in War 2.13.4:

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.

This is exactly what Jesus does in the gospels. He is presented as teaching "under pretense of divine inspiration" and being a different kind of Messiah figure than Jews were expecting (one "not so impure in ... actions, but wicked in ... intentions") in order to procure "innovations and changes of the government," in the sense that he (like other Fourth Philosophers) taught against the oral Torah and believed that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" (as Josephus puts it).

So a person like Jesus is not at all historically implausible and people like this were a dime a dozen, even according to Jesus (Mk. 13:5-6: “See to it that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many"). And I don't see any big deal in assuming (based on all the evidence we have) that Jesus was just another one of these guys. To say that Jesus existed doesn't make his beliefs true any more than the beliefs of other Fourth Philosophers.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:22 pm

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 1:27 pm Not really. The only temporal detail he gives is the resurrection 3 days later. It gives the events in order actually. Dead, resurrected and revealed in visions.

But if I say that Adam was born, then that Moses gave the law to his people, and finally that Jesus was crucified, I proceed like Paul. Yet the gap between these events is substantial.

All true. But the example isn't equivalent. You are using three different people in your statement. Jesus was buried, then resurrected three days later, then appeared in visions. It suggests a shorter time span. Not proof of course. We'd need to see how that fits in with other passages.

Why ?

In Paul's bizarre theology (pre-existence, co-agent of creation), I don't see why it should be surprising that :

- Jesus /Isaiah’s servant was crucified on an unknown date that Paul himself doesn't know,

- then appeared in visions to a few self-proclaimed chosen ones who imagine they have discovered that the Messiah died according to Isaiah

- resurrected according to Isaiah

- was exalted to heaven according to Isaiah,

- and would come on the day of judgment according to Isaiah (with Daniel’s concept of the son of man).

Yes, it's weird.
But Paul is not a historian. And he is the one who says
his sources are the scriptures and his magical visions. I'm not making this up.

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:48 pmOnce you understand that "Paul" is really different people claiming to be one person you can begin to see the path of reliance. This is all but impossible using modern English translations however.

Give it a try. It's a real eye opener.

It's an interesting perspective, but I still see the same question as applying. Based on the idea that there were multiple "Pauls" in writing the letters, and with later authors building on earlier ones, what is your view with regards to the time period that they have set their Jesus in? Are there any obvious differences? Or do they seem to be consistent with Gospel timing?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:28 pm

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:48 pmOnce you understand that "Paul" is really different people claiming to be one person you can begin to see the path of reliance. This is all but impossible using modern English translations however.

Give it a try. It's a real eye opener.

It's an interesting perspective, but I still see the same question as applying. Based on the idea that there were multiple "Pauls" in writing the letters, and with later authors building on earlier ones, what is your view with regards to the time period that they have set their Jesus in? Are there any obvious differences? Or do they seem to be consistent with Gospel timing?

You might be a little too hung up with timing, as, if the Pauline letters are reliant on the Gospel stories and Acts then we would expect them to support that timeline would we not?

And Don, don't just take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

If anything, you will gain a greater appreciation for the material by investigating the underlying Greek.

Guaranteed.

One more point for consideration; if "Paul" is primary, why are the letters after the Gospels and Acts in every example that we have? Surely that would be the reverse if Paul came first don't you think?

lclapshaw wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 4:36 pm And Don, don't just take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

If anything, you will gain a greater appreciation for the material by investigating the underlying Greek.

Guaranteed.

Indeed.
So that for instance it becomes evident that what gets translated with 'scriptures' merely says 'writings'

And 'timing' is a faux pas of course; there's precedence of one text over another, only possible to demonstrate via isolated instances, and that is it

But let's have a look at 1 Cor 15:13, just for fun:


κηρύσσεται (is preached)? Is proclaimed.
ἐγήγερται (He has been raised)? Has been awoken, roused.
κήρυγμα (preaching)? Proclamation

Εἰ (If) δὲ (now) Χς (XS) κηρύσσεται (is PROCLAIMED) ὅτι (that) ἐκ (out-OF) νεκρῶν (the dead) ἐγήγερται (He has been AWOKEN), πῶς (how) λέγουσιν (say) ἐν (IN) ὑμῖν (you) τινες (some) ὅτι (that) ἀνάστασις (resurrection) νεκρῶν (of the dead) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (is)?
13 εἰ (If) δὲ (however) ἀνάστασις (resurrection) νεκρῶν (of the dead) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (is), οὐδὲ (neither) Χς (XS) ἐγήγερται (has been AWOKEN);
14 εἰ (if) δὲ (then) Χς (XS) οὐκ (not) ἐγήγερται (has been AWOKEN), κενὸν (EMPTY) ἄρα (then) [καὶ] (also) τὸ (the) κήρυγμα (PROCLAMATION) ἡμῶν (of us), κενὴ (EMPTY) καὶ (also) ἡ (the) πίστις (faith) ὑμῶν (of you).
15 εὑρισκόμεθα (We are found) δὲ (then) καὶ (also) ψευδομάρτυρες (false witnesses) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God), ὅτι (because) ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν (we have witnessed) κατὰ (concerning) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (God), ὅτι (that) ἤγειρεν (He AWOKE) τὸν (-) Χν (XS), ὃν (whom) οὐκ (not) ἤγειρεν (He has AWOKEN) εἴπερ (if) ἄρα (then) νεκροὶ (the dead) οὐκ (not) ἐγείρονται (are AWOKEN).

Of course it is all interesting enough that there is talk of XS here, not IS: IS is as dead as a doornail, if IS even was known to these people.
In fact, at this point it could very well be the case that there is a story about an IS, and it one about an XS. Thomas and Marcion, and John, talk about IS for instance. And the story about XS is told by the Apocryphon of John, for instance, The Tripartite Tractate, The Teachings of Silvanus

https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... ibrary_2_0

Mark had a reason quite independent of Paul for dating his narrative to the generation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem: -- a study of his gospel demonstrates that his Jesus is a metaphor/personification of the ideal Israel who was made available as the replacement for the Mosaic Israel from 70 CE. Mark's description of the tomb carved from a rock is an application of Isaiah 22:16's comparison of the Temple with a Tomb; the beginning of the gospel has Jesus enter via a baptism (with heavens torn apart as opposed to a sea torn apart) and wilderness experience; he gives life and healing as per the prophecies and suffers as per the prophecies about the righteous man/Israel. He lives in the spirit as a replacement for the physical cult.

As a personification of Israel he is the new centre of spiritual worship post 70 CE.

It follows that it is reasonable and almost inevitable that such a narrative be placed at the turnover point from the old to the new Israel/people of God.

Ben's list of date indicators, it should be noted, misinterpret statements about the revelation of events with the moment of the events themselves. The revelation was made known in the last days, Paul says, not that the crucifixion happened in the last days. --- Like Revelation where we read of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Other points of Ben's rely on verses that are of dubious authenticity on quite other grounds -- and given that these texts only appeared first in an environment of polemics and argument about what Paul actually wrote, they are not secure grounds for certain evidence.

One more thing: it was not unknown for gods and heroes even in classical mythology to be believed to have appeared on earth among "us" in recent historical and contemporary times: https://vridar.org/2020/01/16/ancient-b ... ical-past/

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:13 pm Mark had a reason quite independent of Paul for dating his narrative to the generation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem: -- a study of his gospel demonstrates that his Jesus is a metaphor/personification of the ideal Israel who was made available as the replacement for the Mosaic Israel from 70 CE. Mark's description of the tomb carved from a rock is an application of Isaiah 22:16's comparison of the Temple with a Tomb; the beginning of the gospel has Jesus enter via a baptism (with heavens torn apart as opposed to a sea torn apart) and wilderness experience; he gives life and healing as per the prophecies and suffers as per the prophecies about the righteous man/Israel. He lives in the spirit as a replacement for the physical cult.

As a personification of Israel he is the new centre of spiritual worship post 70 CE.

It follows that it is reasonable and almost inevitable that such a narrative be placed at the turnover point from the old to the new Israel/people of God.

Ben's list of date indicators, it should be noted, misinterpret statements about the revelation of events with the moment of the events themselves. The revelation was made known in the last days, Paul says, not that the crucifixion happened in the last days. --- Like Revelation where we read of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Other points of Ben's rely on verses that are of dubious authenticity on quite other grounds -- and given that these texts only appeared first in an environment of polemics and argument about what Paul actually wrote, they are not secure grounds for certain evidence.

One more thing: it was not unknown for gods and heroes even in classical mythology to be believed to have appeared on earth among "us" in recent historical and contemporary times: https://vridar.org/2020/01/16/ancient-b ... ical-past/

Compelling narrative Neil!
I like the tomb story, learned something new

Mark 15:46 Καὶ (And) ἀγοράσας (having bought) σινδόνα (a linen cloth), καθελὼν (having taken down) αὐτὸν (him), ἐνείλησεν (he wrapped Him in) τῇ (the) σινδόνι (linen cloth) καὶ (and) ἔθηκεν* (laid) αὐτὸν (Him) ἐν (in) μνημείῳ* (a tomb) ὃ (which) ἦν (was) λελατομημένον (cut) ἐκ (out of) πέτρας (a rock). καὶ (And) προσεκύλισεν (he rolled) λίθον (a stone) ἐπὶ (to) τὴν (the) θύραν (door) τοῦ (of the) μνημείου (tomb).

Matthew 27:60 καὶ (and) ἔθηκεν (placed) αὐτὸ (it) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) καινῷ (new) αὐτοῦ (of him) μνημείῳ (tomb), ὃ (which) ἐλατόμησεν (he had cut) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) πέτρᾳ (rock); καὶ (and) προσκυλίσας (having rolled) λίθον (a stone) μέγαν (great) τῇ (to the) θύρᾳ (door) τοῦ (of the) μνημείου (tomb), ἀπῆλθεν (he went away)

Matthew neatly follows, verbatim really

Isaiah 22:16 τί σὺ ὧδε καὶ τί σοί ἐστιν ὧδε ὅτι ἐλατόμησας σεαυτῷ ὧδε μνημεῖον καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ ἐν ὑψηλῷ μνημεῖον καὶ ἔγραψας σεαυτῷ ἐν πέτρᾳ σκηνήν

Verbatim with Isaiah. How about the earliest gospels?

Luke 23:53 καὶ (And) καθελὼν (having taken it down), ἐνετύλιξεν (he wrapped) αὐτὸ (it) σινδόνι (in a linen cloth) καὶ (and) ἔθηκεν (placed) αὐτὸν (it) ἐν (in) μνήματι (a tomb) λαξευτῷ (cut in a rock), οὗ (in which) οὐκ (no) ἦν (had been) οὐδεὶς (no one) οὔπω (not yet) κείμενος (laid).

Luke doesn't really play along although he does use the adjective λαξευτός, from λαξεύω yet not λατομέω - Luke's is the only occurrence of the word, and so are Mark and Matthew with theirs

John 19:41 Ἦν (There was) δὲ (now) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) τόπῳ (place) ὅπου (where) ἐσταυρώθη (He was crucified) κῆπος (a garden), καὶ (and) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) κήπῳ (garden) μνημεῖον (a tomb) καινόν (new), ἐν (in) ᾧ (which) οὐδέπω (not yet) οὐδεὶς (no one) ἦν (was) τεθειμένος (laid).

Likewise for John, he has even less

Perhaps the story starts with John and Marcion copies which cascades down to Luke, or neither are interested in linking to Isaiah. Or John starts, Marcion omits the burial for shock effect, and Mark puts one back in because he needs it for the resurrection - and obviously Matthew harmonises Luke to fit the narrative, though it seems as if that was done from memory, as Luke conflates John with the other two

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 3:09 pm- Jesus /Isaiah’s servant was crucified on an unknown date that Paul himself doesn't know,

I think we can pin Paul's date for when Jesus lived down a little though? If Paul is treating Isaiah 53 as history, then he'd believe that Jesus lived between the time of David and Isaiah. If Paul is treating Isaiah 53 as prophecy, then he'd believe that Jesus lived at some time after Isaiah.

In either case, there is "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Rom 16:25). Wouldn't the mystery itself be the revelation that Christ was to come as the Suffering Servant? So not related to Christ dying when the world began, but at some future time?

(ETA: I may be misunderstanding your view here)