Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[neilgodfrey]

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

One can get away with arguing that even the patriarchs of the OT are fictional (eventually) but as soon as the same pioneering scholar argued that the gospels need not require a historical Jesus to explain them (note: not even arguing that Jesus was mythical) he is dismissed as not being a trained NT specialist, etc. and of course his work was "done badly". Brodie's work also had some academic respectability until he drew the wrong conclusions.

[steve43]

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

Outstanding post that should be re-quoted.
Any person who followed the laws of the Jews as outline in the Torah and was circumcised (male only, of course) was considered a Jew. Anyone of a Jewish mother was considered a Jew. All of the Jewish religious variants spun off out of these basic requirements. Some sects believed in a heaven or hell, others did not. But they were ALL Jews and worshiped the same God. To argue otherwise is foolish.
Josephus is very clear on this.

[ficino]

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.

As I've said, I am not crazy about the CoE, but I agree with yours above, Andrew.

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

Yes, Socrates' association with various upper-class chaps of anti-democratic politics is at the center of our picture of the man. The nature of his relations with individuals becomes murkier. E.g. Isocrates criticizes Polycrates' notorious Accusation of Socrates on various grounds, one being that Polycrates made Alcibiades (not one of the Thirty) a disciple of Socrates. No consensus has been reached on Socrates' views about the politics of Critias, or even on the tone of Plato's portrayal of Critias, his own second cousin. The fact that Socrates, acc. to our sources, remained in the city during the Tyranny and was neither expelled nor joined the democratic opposition is embarrassing even for modern fans of Plato's Socrates.

We're in a better position about the HS than the HJ because we do have 5th- and 4th-century sources other than λόγοι Σωκρατικοί, some of them hostile. We don't have equivalent, contemporary, external confirmation of the picture of Jesus in the gospels. So the work that people expect the CoE to do is, I think, greater in attempts at HJ reconstruction.

Andrew, I will be very interested in any discussions you know of, in which someone uses something like the CoE to try to establish the historical accuracy of a given passage in a dialogue - esp. to establish as historical a given saying or argument of Socrates. Such a move would be analogous to attempts to authenticate "sayings" of the HJ in the gospels by using the Criteria.

[toejam]

I have seen both you and toejam claiming "sound historical conclusions" while refusing to apply standard historical methods. Instead you apply methods that are able to uncover facts from fiction. That's a problem with your argument.

You still don't get it. Neither myself or outhouse are claiming "facts". So when you continually say stuff like "your methods are unable to uncover facts" no one is really disagreeing. When it comes to ancient history, what I consider a "sound historical conclusion" is not a "fact".

[cienfuegos]

I have seen both you and toejam claiming "sound historical conclusions" while refusing to apply standard historical methods. Instead you apply methods that are able to uncover facts from fiction. That's a problem with your argument.

You still don't get it. Neither myself or outhouse are claiming "facts". So when you continually say stuff like "your methods are unable to uncover facts" no one is really disagreeing. When it comes to ancient history, what I consider a "sound historical conclusion" is not a "fact".

I do get it. You claim to have arrived at "sound historical conclusions" without applying standard historical methodology. I used your alternative methods to demonstrate that Jack Crabb's family was massacred by Cheyenne warriors, not warriors from some other tribe.

[ficino]

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.

Ray brown was one (Christian) scholar among many, who for superficial and dubious reasons, give/gave a multiplicity of dating for Galatians. The very conservative NIV bible gives a dating for Galatians as late as 57 CE. The same NIV gives a dating of spring 57 for Romans. Theories abound on when Galatians was written, but I think I am on solid ground with mine, in view of the many similarities with Romans (which are not found in other Pauline epistles).

My Catholic Bible contrasts the "interior of Asia Minor theory," with a date betw 52 and 57, to a "South Galatian" theory, with a date c. 48 "or even before, but more probably after the Council of Jerusalem, 49 or 50". I don't know who wrote this intro, other than some member of the Catholic Biblical Asso. in the early '70s. I can't contest your late date but also don't see strong reason to adopt it; the similarities with Romans constitute evidence, but I am not in a position to weigh it, since authors can remain steadfast in certain positions for considerable time.

Bernard, I've gone through a good deal of material on your website this morning. it is not the first time I've visited it. You are to be commended for the time and thought you put into your work. I still find it hard to follow because the flood of biblical quotations obscures, for me, the structure of your overall argument. Perhaps other readers don't have that problem.

I'm struggling with what you think is the content of the message preached by: the first Jewish proponents of a Jesus cult; Paul.

As to the former, I gather that you think they preached a coming establishment of a Jewish messianic kingdom on earth, led by Jesus coming from heaven. So believers in him, who lead godly lives, will be on his side in this kingdom. The crucifixion was largely ignored. The Temple cult was still accepted, as well as of course the rest of the Torah. Is this your view?
Your statement that Peter and the other disciples never called Jesus "Christ" for the rest of their lives does not rest on actual evidence but on surmises from gospel stories set during Jesus' ministry. Since you acknowledge that the gospels are laced with fictionalizing elements, you have to grapple with authorial intention. We can take Peter's incomprehension in Mark as evidence for the content of Peter's later preaching only by introducing many auxiliary assumptions, for which the texts do not provide obvious evidence.
I like your comparisons of the end of gLuke and the beginning of Acts, though! Very illuminating.

As to Paul's early preaching, he gives the impression in his epistles that he has been preaching a "gospel" (I Thess. 1:5) with some consistency. You say that Paul didn't try to explain the theological significance of Jesus' death on the cross, which he'd been preaching, but that "'Christ crucified' had become a theological weakness with no clear solution."
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

I gather you think Paul began to work out the substitutionary atonement idea in the later 50s. But already in I Thess. 5:10 it says "He died for us, that all of us, whether awake or asleep, together might live with him."

I can't do an in-depth review of all your materials, but the seeming vagueness about the crucifixion in what you postulate as Paul's early preaching is puzzling to me. It took Paul some 30 years after Jesus' purported crucifixion to come up with a theological explanation for it? Wouldn't the cross/being hung on a tree be an issue for which he'd have to have a strong explanation at the get-go? Unless he spent a couple decades avoiding Jews. ??

[Sheshbazzar]

Any person who followed the laws of the Jews as outline in the Torah and was circumcised (male only, of course) was considered a Jew. Anyone of a Jewish mother was considered a Jew. All of the Jewish religious variants spun off out of these basic requirements. Some sects believed in a heaven or hell, others did not. But they were ALL Jews and worshiped the same God. To argue otherwise is foolish.
Josephus is very clear on this.

The world of the Bible, and of the first century, from the perspective of ALL of these ancient 'Scripture' authors, was divided into only TWO factions; The Jews. and the 'Gentiles'.
Any other sub-divisions that may have existed among these TWO groups was always of secondary consideration.

And as I pointed out in my post that preceded this one, that is still a fact of life in all of the Abrahamic religions, a standing division that is made manifest every week all over the world;
In what Day is observed in self-identity, in the engaging in a set Day for the common assembly and worship.
In what texts (canon) is endorsed and permitted to be employed within the confines of each such assembly.
In what practices are permissible and congregationally endorsed, and what practices are eschewed and congregationally discouraged and/or rejected.

One either lives and self-identifies as a Jew, or one lives as the gentiles do. A person is known by their friends, by the associations they keep. Birds of a feather flock together.
'Christianity' forced a recognizable split and division among the Abrahamic 'People of The Book' Before the preaching of 'Iasus the christus', JEWS and the JEWISH religion, regardless of any internal strife or sectarianism, was an entity.
'Christianity' introduced a new and distinctly different entity/body of believers holding distinctly different and opposing views, interpretations, and practices than those of JUDAISM.
What had been one religion and set of basic beliefs became two religions and two sets of beliefs. ....latter three, ....and then four.....
But still from the Bible's and Tanakh's perspective there are in fact only two; JEW or Goyim.
Whom one fraternizes and regularly assembles with and self-identifies with, and what comes out of the mouth, is that which reveals and determines which ONE of these TWO
groups one is in.


Sheshbazzar The Hebrew
(whom by the way, is an atheist, and a 'goy' gentile)

[Bernard Muller]

to ficino,

I'm struggling with what you think is the content of the message preached by: the first Jewish proponents of a Jesus cult; Paul.

As to the former, I gather that you think they preached a coming establishment of a Jewish messianic kingdom on earth, led by Jesus coming from heaven. So believers in him, who lead godly lives, will be on his side in this kingdom. The crucifixion was largely ignored. The Temple cult was still accepted, as well as of course the rest of the Torah. Is this your view?

Yes, that pretty well describes the belief of proto-Christians and early Jewish Christians.
About the belief of "Nazarenes", early Jewish Christians and Paul's followers (at 2 different times), I have a very simple table which summarize the whole thing:
http://historical-jesus.info/48.html

As to Paul's early preaching, he gives the impression in his epistles that he has been preaching a "gospel" (I Thess. 1:5) with some consistency. You say that Paul didn't try to explain the theological significance of Jesus' death on the cross, which he'd been preaching, and that "'Christ crucified' had become a theological weakness with no clear solution."
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

I gather that you think Paul began to work out the substitutionary atonement idea in the later 50s. But already in I Thess. 5:10 it says "He died for us, that all of us, whether awake or asleep, together might live with him."

Yes, this is what I found. About 1 Th 5:10, I said that Paul, early on, suggested Jesus' death was a sacrifice but did not explain that would-be sacrifice was for atonement of sins. That will come later, towards the end of his apostolic life (obvious in 2 Corinthians, Galatians & Romans).

but the seeming emptiness of what you postulate as Paul's early preaching is puzzling to me. It took Paul some 30 years after Jesus' purported crucifixion to come up with a theological explanation for it? Wouldn't it be an issue for which he'd have to have a strong explanation at the get-go? Unless he spent a couple decades avoiding Jews. ??

Paul might have been the first one to propose a crucifixion as a sacrifice for the future elects (at around 50 AD), but with no explanation about why & how. That will come later, some 5 or 6 years later.
That's not such a long time.
Actually, through my sequencing & study, that explanation came even earlier, by the "To the Hebrews" epistle (which I firmly believed, with some evidence, was written by Apollos of Alexandria) in 54 AD.
Paul adopted, sometimes reluctantly, many concepts from Hebrews, which would make that Apollos the true architect of Gentile Christianity, with Paul as only the propagator fighting in the trenches.
Explanations for all that in:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html
and
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
And, as you know already about my thinking on that matter, the crucifixion, for proto-Christians and early Jewish Christians, was of little significance, just a non-fatal accident, because of the belief Jesus was saved in heaven & ready to come back soon (as the King of God's Kingdom on earth).
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

Any person who followed the laws of the Jews as outline in the Torah and was circumcised (male only, of course) was considered a Jew

.

Far from accurate Steve.

One was a jew depending on who was calling said person a jew.

In Hellenistic circles one could simply swear off pagan deities and accept one god, and be considered Jewish.

The name "Jew" is simply to vague to be used during this period without qualifying what kind of Jew one was.

The name "Jew" means very little and does not describe much in the way of context of ones religious beliefs, it only means one was turning monotheistic to the one god as defined during that period.

[outhouse]

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.

South America is way to orthodox to do any biblical research outside orthodoxy. One of their better Biology professors and authors in Peru [my X brother in law] still has a hard time with abiogenesis due to Catholic upbringing, and even stumbles on Human origins. The brainwashing down there is sad.


If anyone wants to break free of the stereotype of being labeled a parallelomaniac, they need to do more honest work in the field. They need to show the foundation of the OT and how many of these parallels were common in Judaism the Movement drew from. Their biggest mistake is just stating there is a connection, yet leave huge gaps in that connection that require imagination and mental hurdles. Then you also have the problem many dishonestly make of adding later dogma that is similar as Hellenism added some of these parallels later in the game as the movement was formed, which has nothing to do with the origin of the movement.

When it comes down to it, there is very little to draw from to connect any of these parallels without leaps of imagination. Im not saying it is impossible, Im saying they need to take GMark just for the fact it is supposed to be the first gospel, and make connecting ties to that particular one, instead of dealing with the layers added by M and L.

And as for Paul, they need t be honest about Pauls use of common Hellenistic Judaism as his foundation for theology. Show me the parallels there first, and then try and explain how these other pagan myths injected themselves into Hellenistic Judaism. Connect the dots man.