Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[outhouse]

The Jesus of cultural anthropology is a modern chimera. We can call him the Anthropological Jesus if you like.


LC

That would be the one im more interested in.

I agree the biblical Jesus is for the most part, mythology.

[outhouse]

Civil war history relies more on proof, as there is evidence that can be used to prove history.

Biblical history lacks evidence for proof, and relies on more on plausibility.

Exactly. In the absence of "facts" to work with plausibility is nothing other than creative mind-games. Anything you want to be true can be made to be true if it is plausible. That's why Crossan said all the contradictory results of historical Jesus studies are such an "embarrassment".

he no say "all" senior

[outhouse]

Actually the anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss when applied to the evidence of the Gospels can show us how the Jesus story is an adaptation of earlier myths. I know one anthropologist is working on that thesis right now.

That id probably read most of. Ill have to wait and see how its evaluated.

[neilgodfrey]

Actually the anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss when applied to the evidence of the Gospels can show us how the Jesus story is an adaptation of earlier myths. I know one anthropologist is working on that thesis right now.

That id probably read most of. Ill have to wait and see how its evaluated.

But we already know in advance that the theologians will dismiss it out of hand. An anthropologist, they will say, is not qualified to pass any judgement on the Bible.

[neilgodfrey]

And he will be accused of a mad parallelomaniac because he will be comparing different myths and stories from an anthropological (Levi-Straussian) perspective. Levi-Strauss's work comparing myths was fine enough when applied to South America but it won't be tolerated applied to the Gospels.

[Sheshbazzar]

WHEN 'Iesus' christus' arrived there was one religion of the Jews, founded on practice of 'the Laws of Moses' The Torah, being practiced by all called 'The Nation of Israel'.

No. There was not one religion. That is a misunderstanding of Judaism. Judaism was broken up into many versions before the orthodox version now known.

How distinct each version was is an understatement. Having been run over so many times and currently under the Roman Sword, the cultural Judaism had been some what lost and under a constant state of redefinition. It was a free for all.

When the mythology of "Iesus" arrived, there was monotheism. Judaism was a perverted version of what once was. While there was a sharp division between Hellenistic Judaism and different sects that resembled traditional views, Hellenism had still permeated every aspect of the cultures considered Jewish by birth. Even traditionalist if you can state that, I often do, had different views on how to interpret these laws.

I often think we do a great disservice to history by not qualifying each aspect of second temple Judaism, buy using just the term Judaism. Aramaic Jews, Hellenistic Jews, Pharisaic Hellenistic Jews compared to Pharisaic Zealot influenced Jews, to Essene communities, and on and on and on. Proselytes in Jerusalem, Gate Keepers, Proselytes of the Diaspora.

YOUR view on the state of first century CE Judaism.

Now a few apt quotes from persons that (supposedly, if you allow their writings, or their claims any credibility) lived in, and experienced that 1st century first hand;

the Pharisees, and ALL THE JEWS, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of THE JEWS, containing two or three firkins apiece.

And THE JEWS Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

How is it that thou, being a JEW, asks a drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for THE JEWS have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of THE JEWS.

After this there was a feast of THE JEWS; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

THE JEWS therefore said unto him that was cured ....

therefore did THE JEWS persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on The Sabbath Day.

Therefore THE JEWS sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken The Sabbath

And the Passover, a feast of THE JEWS was nigh.

THE JEWS then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven

THE JEWS therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in JEWRY, because THE JEWS sought to kill him.

Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of THE JEWS.

These words spake his parents, because they feared THE JEWS: for THE JEWS had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

There was a division therefore again among THE JEWS for these sayings.

Divisions didn't stop JEWS from being "JEWS".

Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto THE JEWS, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded THE JEWS which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Didn't matter what sect they were, or what differences may have existed among them, to the writers, they were ALL of them, 'JEWS'.

we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of THE JEWS, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

THE JEWS stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.

Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with THE JEWS, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

And unto THE JEWS I became as a JEW, that I might gain THE JEW; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

In other words, 'Paul' didn't give a fuck of what sect any particular JEW might be. They were all alike, 'JEWS' to be won over.

ye have heard of my conversation in time past in THE JEWS religion, ....

'Paul' accepts and presents as a fact that "THE JEWS " (collectively, regardless of any sectarian differences) practice ONE distinctive and identifiable religion.

For brevity's sake I have omitted quoting many other similar verses.

All of these knowledgeable, and allegedly 1st century authors knew what a JEW was. Could identify 'JEWS'.
And believed that all 'JEWS' as a group were distinct and identifiable by their engagement in 'JEWISH' practices that they, as being "JEWS", regardless of their sect or philosophical/theological differences, generally as being JEWS held in common.

I often think we do a great disservice to history by not qualifying each aspect of second temple Judaism, buy using just the term Judaism. Aramaic Jews, Hellenistic Jews, Pharisaic Hellenistic Jews compared to Pharisaic Zealot influenced Jews, to Essene communities, and on and on and on. Proselytes in Jerusalem, Gate Keepers, Proselytes of the Diaspora.

This is like recognizing and accounting for 20,000 maple trees, 34,000 oaks, 23,000 pines, 1500 birches, and thousands of sundry other species of trees all growing together, and then refusing to recognize or acknowledge that the whole together comprises what is known as a 'FOREST'.

You 'Can't (or would rather not) see the forest for the trees'

I kindly suggest that you ought try perceiving the unity of that 'forest' that all of these 1st century writers were so well aware of.


Sheshbazzar

[andrewcriddle]

The problem I have with this sort of argument is that it seems to imply that even if we knew the claims that Christians in the time of Claudius were making about Jesus we would be unable to determine the historical truth behind theses claims.

I don't regard this as at all an absurd position, but it does seem to be in effect a position of general scepticism about the possibility of doing ancient history.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew, I hope it was clear that what I wrote was a caution against confidence in the so-called Criteria of Authenticity. To withhold confidence in those criteria, as they are deployed upon the gospels in an attempt to sift out facts about Jesus, does not entail a general scepticism about recovering facts from antiquity and using them in reconstructions. It does entail skepticism about recovering facts from propaganda, when the propaganda are the only "sources" we have and are informed by the fabulous. In such cases, perhaps we can say with Nietzsche that we are offered, not facts, but only interpretations.

The problem of propaganda is widespread in ancient history.

Practically everything we supposedly know about Socrates is blatant propaganda from one side or another.
With respect to Alexander the Great we have an official version and a popular version. Quite apart from other issues both versions have a clear (but opposing) spin.

Many on this forum would agree that miraculous claims undermine the credibility of a whole narrative. How far this is prejudice I am unsure. (The 'official' version of Alexander has snakes guiding the king to Siwah.)

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Re the Criterion of Embarrassment: I think I posted this a while ago. But I am so fond of my own writing that I post it again.

In line with what some other people have said above, here are my reasons so far for viewing as a FAIL the application of the CoE to the crucifixion.

The NT scholar who uses the CoE to argue the historicity of the crucifixion reasons as follows. “Even though I can’t prove that the resurrection occurred, I can at least make a strong case that Jesus was crucified, because the early Christians would be embarrassed to preach a crucified messiah. They might have imagined or invented the resurrection to salvage their movement after its founder’s crucifixion, but they would not have made up the crucifixion itself—the probability would be too great that (Jewish) people would reject a cult of a crucified messiah.”

Against this:
1. I don’t have a background in prob. and stat., so my layman’s take may be off. It seems to me that, whatever the antecedent probability of success of a cult of a crucified messiah, the historical probability of its success is one. The face that it overwhelmed other cults shows that there were increasing numbers of people who did not reject the crucified messiah.

Why didn’t they?

2. Of the tradition that has reached us, there NEVER was a stage in which the message was anything other than the crucified AND resurrected messiah. A period of time during which the early Christians knew only a crucified messiah is itself an artifact of the gospels, the historicity of which is the subject of discussion. Away with a “crucified but not resurrected messiah.” The material under our scrutiny is all and only about a “crucified and resurrected messiah.” Even genuine or invented rebuttals from antiquity presuppose already a message about a resurrected messiah. There are no nuggets of historical fact that can be detached as bare data from the tradition; all we have are various forms of the tradition.

3. And in that tradition is seen the genius of the cult’s message. It appeals to people of all stripes. Even the illiterate could look at pictures and see a Jesus who triumphed over the authorities who condemned and killed him. And so on.

So I think the CoE relies on unwarranted assumptions about intentions of people to whom, and in a time to which, we have no access outside of the already formed tradition of the crucified AND resurrected messiah.

Judas: some might think there is a historical core to stories about him, since his betrayal of Jesus would be embarrassing. Not nec, it seems to me, if viewed as part of a myth: the hero is betrayed by a friend, the righteous man suffers at hands of his enemies (incl. demonic ones) because of the betrayal, the betrayer goes to an evil end – all traditional motifs, esp. in earlier Judaism.

An example of application of the CoE: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004. she accepts the historicity of the charge that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews; she says it would be too embarrassing for early Christians for them to have fabricated it. [[!! ]] p. 198

------------------------------------------------------------

Adding to what I had posted some time ago: I understand that some scholars only try to apply the Criteria of Authenticity to sayings attributed to Jesus. I see others apply them to actions reported in the gospels. That's why I look at the CoE in connection to the crucifixion.

I think the criteron of embarrassment is a good argument against the idea of an historical Jesus who was not crucified. Adding a fictional shocking death to a real character's life and solving the problem created by adding an equally fictional triumph over death seems implausible.

I tend to agree that the criteria of enbarrassment cannot be used to argue against an entirely fictional Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Bernard, you may be more up on the literature than I. Ray Brown said that I Thess was the first epistle, written around 52. But a good number of people, according to Wikipedia, put Galatians around 50 or even 49.

Anyway, the Criteria have to do with the attempt to pull "nuggets" out of the gospels. So far, your allowances for Markan invention or fictionalization or whatever we call it seem to undermine the status of that gospel as a source for authentic info about the disciples (and Jesus), since we don't have a way of getting behind Mark's authorial portrayal.

Similar to what I said before about our not having a way of getting behind Paul's presentation of the kerygma to an earlier stage of it.

A somewhat similar problem is the quest for the historical Socrates. There are enough contemporary mentions of the man that we can be confident that he existed. But what was his philosophy? There are some affinities among what we see of Socrates in dialogue in the portrayals of Aeschines of Sphettos, Plato, Xenophon, and even Aristophanes. Among these different portraits, some common elements are his method of testing people's beliefs through dialectic, incl. techniques common to eristic and antilogic. He seemed to have talked a lot about virtue and the best life. But there are many differences among the portrayals. The result is that among people who work on Socrates, the overall slant nowadays is mostly to try to recover what was written about him and analyze those writings as writings. So we get reconstructions of Plato's Socrates, Xenophon's Socrates, and so on. Everyone I know is pretty well in agreement that the dialogues are fictionalizing portrayals more than they are reports - despite some introductory passages that present the ensuing conversation as though it's the ipsissima verba, transmitted by eyewitnesses (e.g. Xenophon, prologue of Plato's Theaetetus).

Do I think we can know nothing about Socrates? No. I'm even fine with accepting that he had two wives, Xanthippe and Myrto, of perhaps different legal status. But there's much doubt, for example, about his apology in court. One strain of evidence suggests he said little that amounted to very much. Many people wrote Apologies of Socrates. We don't have a clear way to get behind them, for all the remains are already interpretations.

....................................................................

Scholars who work on these figures advance human knowledge. I don't think they generally employ devices that are equivalents of the Criteria of Authenticity devised by NT scholars. I still think many of those guys fall into circularity.

One way the criteria of embarrasment has actually been used for Socrates, is to emphasise the association between the historical Socrates and the notorious 'Thirty Tyrants'.

It could not be ignored and Socrates' supporters had to deal with it.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Actually the anthropology of Claude Levi-Strauss when applied to the evidence of the Gospels can show us how the Jesus story is an adaptation of earlier myths. I know one anthropologist is working on that thesis right now.

That id probably read most of. Ill have to wait and see how its evaluated.

But we already know in advance that the theologians will dismiss it out of hand. An anthropologist, they will say, is not qualified to pass any judgement on the Bible.

FWIW Edmund Leach applied Levi-Strauss to the Old Testament and was taken seriously by Biblical scholars.

If done well I suspect the work will be taken seriously, however it is very easy to do this sort of analysis badly.

Andrew Criddle