Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I very much enjoy Neil Godfrey's website because he deals a lot with the question of historiography and how methods of analysis are applied in Jesus studies. When I see these arguments about the "historical Jesus," it seems like the sides are really talking apples and oranges; a situation that occurs due to the nature of the question that different researchers are attempting to answer. For example, scholars engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus ask what facts can be discerned from the sources about the nature of the demythologized man,Jesus. Increasingly, the last quest has fallen prey to the same flaws originally observed by Schweitzer: everybody sees their own Jesus, the Jesus that serves their personal, political,or religious biases. As Scot McKnight put it: all reconstructions of the historical Jesus are theological.

The answers we arrive at are related to the questions we ask. If we ask: What did the historical Jesus teach? Our goal would be to try to discern what teachings preserved in writing were likely to be authentic to Jesus. In order to claim any progress at all, we would have to apply a methodology to sift what is authentic from what is not authentic. Our assumption, entailed in the question itself, is that there is authentic material to be found. In recent years, though,the criteria of authenticity have lost their appeal as an increasing number of scholars have noted the weaknesses of the methodology. In the end, it appears that finding the historical Jesus behind the myth might be an impossible task, no matter how hard it is to admit.

Abandoning the task of discovering hidden authentic sayings or facts, some scholars have introduced a "plausible" Jesus. This argument is referenced on this site fairly often: there isn't anything implausible about a Jewish apocalyptic preacher in the 30s creating a disturbance in the temple and meeting a gruesome end on a Roman cross, therefore, there was a Jesus. There is more to this, of course: Jesus fits into the context of his times, in his teachings and fate, so therefore we can say without any doubt that there was a Jesus. I find this to be not an evidence based avenue of exploration and has about as much credibility as the Real Face of Jesus (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... cs/1282186). Like the reconstruction of the "real face of Jesus," this is one plausibility out of basically an infinite number of possibilities. It is also not a falsifiable position. There is no way to disprove that this particular obscure preacher from the first century was crucified by Romans.

Both of these approaches assume that an actual Jesus existed. If we did the same with King Arthur or Robin Hood stories, we would scour them evidences of authenticity. Does Robin Hood fit the context of his times? There really were popular uprisings in the 1300s when Robin Hood ballads emerged. So what of the Robin Hood stories could be authentic? It seems by the same argument used to establish a real Jesus, one could establish a real Robin Hood. Attempts were later made to tie Robin Hood to real historical figures, but so far, nothing has stuck. It seems most likely that Robin Hood is an imaginary figure. However, if we were to approach the Robin Hood material in the same way that Jesus sources are approached, no doubt our search would be fruitful.

On the other hand, mythicists (or at least those that I find most interesting), approach this topic from a different direction. The question I see asked is: what are the origins of Christianity? Did Christianity begin with the teachings and death of Jesus of Nazareth or did a belief in a heavenly being morph into the belief in the religious teacher Jesus Christ? This is a very different question, it embodies a different selection of sources. In the former case, ancient writings that do not provide insight about the real Jesus have little value and often researchers do not feel the need to examine them. For example, the writings of Philo are irrelevant to historical Jesus studies but are of great relevance to evolution of Christian beliefs and thought. Likewise, the gospels are the richest source for Jesus studies, but have little bearing on origins, given their lateness and questions about reliability. There is an abundance of pre-Christian Jewish writings that attest to the development of ideas that were, at the least, later adopted by Christians and applied to Jesus, whether he was real or not. The writings of Paul attest to the fact that the details of the life and teachings of Jesus were not seen as important, but Paul does reference the LXX many times. Other early writings reference LXX and even cite them to Jesus (who apparently only knew the LXX so must have known Greek, right? Come on, right?).

So, the point here is that the answers scholars get are determined by the questions they ask. If we ask, what did Jesus really teach? We are likely to find answers to that question, whether or not jesus did actually exist. If we ask, what are the origins of Christian thought, we will find that Christianity did not emerge full blown in 29 AD (or whenever).

Good OP,
I think historicists tried to put way too much of a load on Jesus' shoulders.
What did Jesus teach? Not much once you realize he was most likely an uneducated rustic. Furthermore Paul did not report any teaching by a human Jesus, and the so-called teachings of Jesus (including all his alleged parables) in the gospels appear to be addressed (very suspiciously) to later Christians, not to his contemporaries.
I agree that a plausible (but well documented) reconstruction is the best that can be achieved.
But that reconstruction still has to explain how Jesus, despite having been such a low figure, nevertheless ignited the development of Christianity by others (but not by his eyewitnesses).
Cordially, Bernard

cienfuegos wrote:So, the point here is that the answers scholars get are determined by the questions they ask.

Well said Cienfuegos.

Didn't Einstein say much the same things about physics?

So what questions should be asked?

Who was the inventor of ecclesiastical historiography?

• • The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography
  • Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century

LC

Bernard Muller wrote:But that reconstruction still has to explain how Jesus, despite having been such a low figure, nevertheless ignited the development of Christianity by others (but not by his eyewitnesses).

Hi Bernard,

What if a reconstruction of the origins and development of Christianity can be formulated which does not require (the hypothesis of) an historical Jesus?


LC

Bernard Muller wrote:Good OP,
I think historicists tried to put way too much of a load on Jesus' shoulders.
What did Jesus teach? Not much once you realize he was most likely an uneducated rustic. Furthermore Paul did not report any teaching by a human Jesus, and the so-called teachings of Jesus (including all his alleged parables) in the gospels appear to be addressed (very suspiciously) to later Christians, not to his contemporaries.
I agree that a plausible (but well documented) reconstruction is the best that can be achieved.
But that reconstruction still has to explain how Jesus, despite having been such a low figure, nevertheless ignited the development of Christianity by others (but not by his eyewitnesses).
Cordially, Bernard

I largely agree. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that "the Jews require a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom." Lo and behold, that is exactly what we later find in the Gospel narratives.

cienfuegos wrote:So, the point here is that the answers scholars get are determined by the questions they ask. If we ask, what did Jesus really teach? We are likely to find answers to that question, whether or not jesus did actually exist. If we ask, what are the origins of Christian thought, we will find that Christianity did not emerge full blown in 29 AD (or whenever).

But this is basically the position of most historicists as well. Most historicists don't say that Jesus taught what we know now of as distinctly "Christian thought". The historical Jesus then becomes the initiating spark. Christianity developed as a means to "explain" how it was this Jewish cult leader's crucifixion was somehow part of a divine plan. For me, this is one of the big giveaways that there was likely a historical figure - the desperation of trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole (crucified criminal = divine plan).

So when it comes to questions like "what did Jesus really teach?", I don't think we can know with any high degree of confidence - only best-guesses based mainly on contextual plausibility, multiple attestation and dissimilarity. But as many are aware, these criteria are not fool proof and may still lead us to incorrect conclusions. As I've said here, the gospel traditions might give us a very accurate picture of the real Jesus, what he taught, the main events in his ministry etc. Or they could be practically useless. I find myself fitting in the middle somewhere.

What if a reconstruction of the origins and development of Christianity can be formulated which does not require (the hypothesis of) an historical Jesus?

With what evidence? very little if any, and a lot against it.
Requiring ill-substantiated theories, very indirect & remote alleged clues, a lot of total trashing of ancient Christian texts, parallelomania, hyper skepticism, silly hypotheses, quasi-religious behaviour, invocation of wide ranging and organized plots, etc ...
On the contrary, a very minimal Jesus can explain the origin of Christianity a lot better, a lot simpler, than any of these many mythicist theories.
Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: On the contrary, a very minimal Jesus can explain the origin of Christianity a lot better, a lot simpler, than any of these many mythicist theories.
Cordially, Bernard

Bingo.

Nothing is more plausible then Hellenist writing about a Aramaic Galilean after he became popular due to his actions in the temple that martyred him.

What did Jesus teach? Not much once you realize he was most likely an uneducated rustic.

It is my take that what he knew he learned from John and other Aramaic Galilean teachings. Q and Thomas if they have any connect to Jesus, would simply be just local Aramaic Galilean teachings labeled as teachings of Jesus.

I would posit any parable attributed to a Jesus character should be attributed to John or any other Aramaic Galilean first. We cannot know.

Bernard Muller wrote: ... a very minimal Jesus can explain the origin of Christianity a lot better, a lot simpler, than any of these many mythicist theories.

As a 2nd century preacher-dude, yes (the Temple references being allegorical, like most of the story)

Bernard Muller wrote: But that reconstruction still has to explain how Jesus, despite having been such a low figure, nevertheless ignited the development of Christianity by others (but not by his eyewitnesses).
Cordially, Bernard

So the question would be: How did an apparently rustic rural individual ignite the development of Christianity?

This is the question that led me on my own personal journey exploring the origins of Christianity. I think, in fact, it might be unprecedented. The focus of my master's degree was on peasant rebellion in the modern era (I traveled to Cabanas, El Salvador and Chiapas, Mexico at various times in the course of my studies--one at the end of a rural based uprising, and once in the middle of one). I also studied under a professor whose major work was on peasant rebellion in medieval Japan (as an undergrad, by the way). Another major movement I studied in depth was the original Zapatista movement that originated in Morelos, Mexico. I was interested at first in the Jesus movement as that sort of uprising (as in, Was it?). I was, as you might imagine, attracted to Crossan's work. Maybe what I learned about these social movements just wasn't transferable, but I really did not find anything resembling these movements in early Christianity (though in Josephus I did find substantial evidence that such movements existed).

I concluded then that it did not actually seem plausible that a rural based movement that seems to have raised not even an eyebrow could have emerged out of rural Galilee and spread throughout the Mediterranean in such a short time. It was, as some apologists argue, an "impossible religion." I find it much more plausible that Paul believed in a celestial being that was revealed in scripture. That's just my reading of the evidence. I cannot find a mechanism by which a movement started by an obscure preacher executed by Rome could emerge as any kind of social movement. (argument from incredulity? Maybe, just show me a theory that encompasses the evidence and I'll be a believer.) The gospel stories are all reworked versions of Mark's allegory that brought Jesus to life. I don't think the Gospel story existed before gMark (show me the evidence). There were definitely more likely candidates than Jesus of Nazareth to be exalted as God's son and savior of the world (saved by his death, by the way).

Does the evidence, itself, support this theory? Our best evidence for the obscure, rural Jesus are the Gospels. We ask:

Was Jesus an obscure rural preacher who ignited a movement that became one of the world's largest religions?

Our null hypothesis is that Jesus was [something other than] a rural preacher...
Our alternative hypothesis would be: Jesus was a rural preacher...

In empirical research, we have to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. If we cannot disprove the null hypothesis, we cannot reject it. But where do we look for evidence? The Gospels are late and there is no clear theory of how the sources for the original gospel were transmitted through time from the 30s (or so) to the 60s (or so). Theories of oral tradition are flawed and really misapplied (I could go on more about that, but for now will leave it at that). If we look in the Gospels, we can find evidence we might be tempted to use. The problem is that there is no way to disentangle what is layered myth from what might be real history. If we examined Robin Hood stories similarly we would come to conclusions about what the historical Robin Hood was really like.

In the absence of the evidence that can corroborate the Gospels (and I do hold that we don't have such evidence), we are left with the plausibility of the hypothesis itself: It does not seem to have even face validity. Could an obscure rural preacher have been executed by Romans and yet ignite a major movement that spreads throughout the Mediterranean by the 40s or 50s? It just is not very likely. We cannot reject the null hypothesis, therefore we cannot accept the alternative hypothesis. The evidence, as we have seen, can support a number of different views of who the real Jesus was (or what he was like and what he taught).

In fact, the "obscure Jesus" hypothesis really puts Jesus beyond falsifiability (which puts the thesis beyond acceptability as a productive focus of examination). It seems to me an attempt to rationalize the lack of evidence for the real historical Jesus. An easier way of that problem is to accept that there was not a real Jesus and that Jesus first emerged as a product of superstitious imagination. There is evidence that some Jews began referring to a suffering servant figure in the past tense (such as in the Wisdom of Solomon) and possibly pre-Christian versions of the Ascension of Isaiah. Paul says that the Jesus story is "according to the scripture." I do not think, like maryhelena, that there were two Jesus stories, other than that the author of gMark created an allegory based on the beliefs of a heavenly Jesus in the wake of the destruction of the Temple.